grey_man Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 I think a future problem could be that once a service is accepted by the public as validly being pay-to-use it is easier for the provider to up the prices when the time suits. Take funerals & cremations & look at how charges have soared for a service that was once paid for by the rates & that is after all just the ultimate recycling service. There is a lot of creep going on with this sort of thing. I feel as if councils - not just WBC - now see their tax income as primarily being the money that pays for the council itself. Everything else is prone to be outsourced to residents themselves. They're becoming self perpetuating bureaucracies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 There is a lot of creep going on with this sort of thing. I feel as if councils - not just WBC - now see their tax income as primarily being the money that pays for the council itself. Everything else is prone to be outsourced to residents themselves. They're becoming self perpetuating bureaucracies. Given that Council Tax is about £80 million per annum, that is probably factually correct......indeed salaries, employers NI and pension contributions might well exceed that figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted November 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2016 The theory is that most capital projects are self financing, so for example the Times Square project (£110 million) the rent earned by letting out properties and the savings made by housing all council staff in the new office building...and disposing of the unused offices... etc generates enough income to both repay the loan and its interest...and if not the development itself can be sold off...with the assumption that it will have increased in value....as did Golden Square. Now if the theory doesn't go to plan, interest will be paid out of revenue expenditure...possibly to the detriment of other services, and the capital of the loan will have to be financed by taking out an additional loan or extending the existing loan. Other capital projects are based on the business case that the long term cost is less than the costs incurred if nothing is done....a very simple analogy is that people upgrade their heating boiler to the latest model that costs less to run and repair, so over time the cost of the new version is less than the cost of continuing to run the old model. In the case of loans to registered social landlords, it is a simple numbers game whereby the social landlords pay to WBC more than WBC borrowed and the "profit" becomes income that WBC can then use to pay for services...WBC's secures the loan against property owned by the social landlord. While it does make sense that there is a single office the question is why has the council been so badly run to date and this has not been done before? How much rent are you expecting from the park were the Chambers building is or how much extra revenue is the council expecting to gain by replacing the car park? The council has previously reported it has lost money on car parks so the only way to gain extra revenue is to raise charges? As for the buildings that got torn down they were not old boilers but about the same age as Golden Sq and newer. YoThe council is replacing like with like as what was there were retail units, office, market and with the exception of the cinema the same is being put back. There was NO need to pull the retail units down, NO need to demolish the car park, NO need to demolish the old Boots store. If the council wanted a cinema all it needed was the market to be moved into the old Boots shop or it could have been built on the car park behind the retail units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted November 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2016 I will be paying the £30, as in my circumstances it seems the best option...not least because often when I go to the tip....I end up with a nail or screw in my tyres. Charging has been on the cards for sometime as are other potential changes...it is just easier politically to introduce changes when there are no elections until 2020. So will I; probably but not happy about it! much rather use the £30 for something else. While it maybe £1.83 per collection some people have only small gardens and may have only half a bag of grass cuttings per collection. Most of the people I spoke to won't though, most are planning to use the black bins, some are planning to take it to the tip others to use part of their garden as a garden dump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted November 22, 2016 Report Share Posted November 22, 2016 While it does make sense that there is a single office the question is why has the council been so badly run to date and this has not been done before? How much rent are you expecting from the park were the Chambers building is or how much extra revenue is the council expecting to gain by replacing the car park? The council has previously reported it has lost money on car parks so the only way to gain extra revenue is to raise charges? As for the buildings that got torn down they were not old boilers but about the same age as Golden Sq and newer. YoThe council is replacing like with like as what was there were retail units, office, market and with the exception of the cinema the same is being put back. There was NO need to pull the retail units down, NO need to demolish the car park, NO need to demolish the old Boots store. If the council wanted a cinema all it needed was the market to be moved into the old Boots shop or it could have been built on the car park behind the retail units. Actually the car parks in Lymm and Stockton Heath have always made a surplus. What the council did was conflated these numbers with the costs of on-street parking elsewhere and the council's own employee parking, announced that parking made a loss and then bumped the prices up in those areas it can get away with it. Then did it again. And again. As with everything this council does, there's always more going on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted November 22, 2016 Report Share Posted November 22, 2016 The theory is that most capital projects are self financing, so for example the Times Square project (£110 million) the rent earned by letting out properties and the savings made by housing all council staff in the new office building...and disposing of the unused offices... etc generates enough income to both repay the loan and its interest...and if not the development itself can be sold off...with the assumption that it will have increased in value....as did Golden Square. Now if the theory doesn't go to plan, interest will be paid out of revenue expenditure...possibly to the detriment of other services, and the capital of the loan will have to be financed by taking out an additional loan or extending the existing loan. Other capital projects are based on the business case that the long term cost is less than the costs incurred if nothing is done....a very simple analogy is that people upgrade their heating boiler to the latest model that costs less to run and repair, so over time the cost of the new version is less than the cost of continuing to run the old model. In the case of loans to registered social landlords, it is a simple numbers game whereby the social landlords pay to WBC more than WBC borrowed and the "profit" becomes income that WBC can then use to pay for services...WBC's secures the loan against property owned by the social landlord. The analogy with boilers doesn't stack up. Around 40 percent of new commercial property doesn't meet its designed performance targets and other councils have discovered to their cost that you can't just assume you'll be able to find buyers for vacated properties when you consolidate a portfolio. Then again, the offices may go over budget, not that we know what that is. It may all go to Plan A, of course. In which case, great. But it may not and we'll never know because there is no scrutiny and no public awareness of the business case. I get the impression that most councillors are in the dark about what is happening. We don't even know how the offices are being financed which is pertinent because it may be that the fit-out - or part of it - is coming from revenue. It wouldn't look good on the council if it was removing services and charging for others while spending x million on office furniture from the revenue budget, would it? The council is relying on complacency from the electorate on this issue. It thinks it can get away with just dismissing people who moan about the offices when the problem is actually more complex and involves the likes of Russ Bowden openly lying to residents in saying 'there is no separate budget'. Well, of course there is. The council just doesn't want anybody to know what it is, especially if the plan falls apart. Then there is the question of opportunity cost. If this land is revenue generating and the council's offices aren't, shouldn't it have been used for something else?? Then the council could base its core functions in a much less expensive building elsewhere, perhaps on one of the many business parks in the borough, set up a counter in the town centre for residents to use and saved a lot of money while increasing their income from the development. Was this considered or any other alternatives? Again, we've got no way of knowing because the council flat out refuses to set out its business case and the alternatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 22, 2016 Report Share Posted November 22, 2016 Most of the people I spoke to won't though, most are planning to use the black bins, some are planning to take it to the tip others to use part of their garden as a garden dump. A lot of people I've spoken too all say they wont be paying the new charge and will just do what they used to do before the green bins existed and take their grass and hedge cuttings etc to the local tip again. Some only have small gardens and patio yards so no point in them paying for one but some have large lawns, flower beds and hedges etc too but still say they wont pay. A few have said they will though because due to ridiculous tip opening hours people who work can only ever go at weekends and there's always queues. Re taking to the tip....that made me think though. Do the council have to pay for tip waste to be removed and recycled or is that now the responsibility of the contracted company that they pay to run them? If it is the responsibility of the company running the tips and they suddenly decide it's costing them too much to get rid of all the extra green waste deposited there could they then decide to stop allowing people to take it all there? I suppose on the other hand though the contracted company could make more money for themselves if they are responsible) from the selling on for composting etc. Either way the councils green bin collection wagons will still driving the same routes and using the same amount of fuel regardless of whether they collect from 5 'paid for ' houses per street or 25 'paid for' houses per street. I just cant get my head around it all but at the end of the day it will make no difference to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 22, 2016 Report Share Posted November 22, 2016 I presume they expect those of us who are willing to pay the charge will cover the cost of the collection, in fact they will profit from them as not as many journeys will have to be made to the tip to offload. I don't have any option myself but to pay the charge because, as I said in another thread, my mansion has extensive grounds but unfortunately the gardener has no transport of his own and there's no way I'm putting garden waste in the boot of the Rolls to take to the tip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 Didn't some Councils issue special composting bins? Which you loaded at the top with cuttings etc, and it rotted down, to be extracted at the bottom as compost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted November 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 Actually the car parks in Lymm and Stockton Heath have always made a surplus. What the council did was conflated these numbers with the costs of on-street parking elsewhere and the council's own employee parking, announced that parking made a loss and then bumped the prices up in those areas it can get away with it. Then did it again. And again. As with everything this council does, there's always more going on. It can't be hard to make money at Lymm and Stockton Heath. The car parks are rather small and so busy, with little alternative parking and I am guessing no expensive overheads. I regularly use the multi-storey car park at Golden Sq and most of the time it is rarely 50% full (even now the market St car park is closed), guessing the overheads are much bigger with electricity bills, insurance, maintenance and so on. Seems Warrington Councilors think they will make more money by increasing their overheads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 It can't be hard to make money at Lymm and Stockton Heath. The car parks are rather small and so busy, with little alternative parking and I am guessing no expensive overheads. I regularly use the multi-storey car park at Golden Sq and most of the time it is rarely 50% full (even now the market St car park is closed), guessing the overheads are much bigger with electricity bills, insurance, maintenance and so on. Seems Warrington Councilors think they will make more money by increasing their overheads. To me this is the dead giveaway that the council is now in self preservation mode. They betray themselves on issues like this. They see the car parks as a cash cow that is easy to milk and don't care about the consequences for local people and businesses. If the shops close and parents take to parking dangerously rather than risk getting the inevitable parking ticket by being 30 seconds late, then so be it. If the sick and old stress themselves about exactly how long they need at the medical centre, that's fine too. At least the council has made a few thousand extra quid. This is much easier for them than addressing the actual causes of the deficit in the parking function - staff parking and on road permits. The shame is that the businesses they will drive to extinction with this sort of thinking are often local businesses. They might say they don't want people in cars driving to out of town retail parks, but their 'strategy' doesn't encourage people to shop locally and support small businesses. All that matters now is that the council can carry on as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 The analogy with boilers doesn't stack up. Around 40 percent of new commercial property doesn't meet its designed performance targets and other councils have discovered to their cost that you can't just assume you'll be able to find buyers for vacated properties when you consolidate a portfolio. Then again, the offices may go over budget, not that we know what that is. It may all go to Plan A, of course. In which case, great. But it may not and we'll never know because there is no scrutiny and no public awareness of the business case. I get the impression that most councillors are in the dark about what is happening. We don't even know how the offices are being financed which is pertinent because it may be that the fit-out - or part of it - is coming from revenue. It wouldn't look good on the council if it was removing services and charging for others while spending x million on office furniture from the revenue budget, would it? The council is relying on complacency from the electorate on this issue. It thinks it can get away with just dismissing people who moan about the offices when the problem is actually more complex and involves the likes of Russ Bowden openly lying to residents in saying 'there is no separate budget'. Well, of course there is. The council just doesn't want anybody to know what it is, especially if the plan falls apart. Then there is the question of opportunity cost. If this land is revenue generating and the council's offices aren't, shouldn't it have been used for something else?? Then the council could base its core functions in a much less expensive building elsewhere, perhaps on one of the many business parks in the borough, set up a counter in the town centre for residents to use and saved a lot of money while increasing their income from the development. Was this considered or any other alternatives? Again, we've got no way of knowing because the council flat out refuses to set out its business case and the alternatives. My analogy to boilers relates to "other capital projects" rather than the town centre regeneration....street lighting could be an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 PS With regards to the new Council offices, there absolutely was a fully costed business plan to justify the additional capital cost which then became an integral part of the overall budget for the Times Square regeneration project. Here's a controversial thought, why not make the new Council offices the new Town Hall.......and sell off the current one...to the company who wanted to develop Walton Hall...and who have successfully developed in co-operation with Wigan MBC, Haigh Hall in Wigan. http://www.haighhallhotel.co.uk/ and on one of the opening pictures is a former WBC Councillor and now a Wigan MBC Councillor joining in the keys handover photo call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 PS With regards to the new Council offices, there absolutely was a fully costed business plan to justify the additional capital cost which then became an integral part of the overall budget for the Times Square regeneration project. Here's a controversial thought, why not make the new Council offices the new Town Hall.......and sell off the current one...to the company who wanted to develop Walton Hall...and who have successfully developed in co-operation with Wigan MBC, Haigh Hall in Wigan. http://www.haighhallhotel.co.uk/ and on one of the opening pictures is a former WBC Councillor and now a Wigan MBC Councillor joining in the keys handover photo call. There may well have been, and it may all add up, but nobody will ever know because the council is pulling its usual trick of lying about what they are doing (call it misdirecting if you prefer) and avoiding scrutiny. So what happens if it's over budget? What happens if it doesn't meet its performance targets? What happens if the council can't sell vacated premises or doesn't make the expected gains from them? Nobody will be any the wiser and that's exactly the way the council wants it at a time it is withdrawing and denuding services and facilities across the Borough. You don't need to look to the machinations and attitudes of central government to see why people have had enough of the political class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted November 24, 2016 Report Share Posted November 24, 2016 Didn't some Councils issue special composting bins? Which you loaded at the top with cuttings etc, and it rotted down, to be extracted at the bottom as compost? Yes, including Warrington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted November 25, 2016 Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 PS With regards to the new Council offices, there absolutely was a fully costed business plan to justify the additional capital cost which then became an integral part of the overall budget for the Times Square regeneration project. Here's a controversial thought, why not make the new Council offices the new Town Hall.......and sell off the current one...to the company who wanted to develop Walton Hall...and who have successfully developed in co-operation with Wigan MBC, Haigh Hall in Wigan. http://www.haighhallhotel.co.uk/ and on one of the opening pictures is a former WBC Councillor and now a Wigan MBC Councillor joining in the keys handover photo call. There was a "fully costed business plan" re the sell off of Walton Hall, with a questionable procurement procedure and fabricated figures. With those who put these plans together still working for WBC how could we be expected to believe without question the present Town Centre plans? As grey-man says WBC are not being open and transparent about their plans. Paul, re your 'controversial thought' on the Town Hall - is there something you know which hasn't been revealed to the general public? There may well have been, and it may all add up, but nobody will ever know because the council is pulling its usual trick of lying about what they are doing (call it misdirecting if you prefer) and avoiding scrutiny. So what happens if it's over budget? What happens if it doesn't meet its performance targets? What happens if the council can't sell vacated premises or doesn't make the expected gains from them? Nobody will be any the wiser and that's exactly the way the council wants it at a time it is withdrawing and denuding services and facilities across the Borough. You don't need to look to the machinations and attitudes of central government to see why people have had enough of the political class. WBC have raised £150 million in 'bonds' £100 million of which they have retained to ensure the Regeneration plans will be carried out. Seems to me to be a very risky business and could leave the Warrington public with huge debt for the next 40 years. Will the buildings they are planning to throw up be still standing in 40 years or will they have been demolished long before the debt is paid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 On 24/11/2016 at 11:43 AM, Paul Kennedy said: Yes, including Warrington. and they also gave away compost - I collected both a year or so ago for a local resident and he made good use of it. I think that the green bins are not a compulsory service that the council needs to provide - I believe therefore that the logic was to either withdraw collections or charge for them - in essence they have done both. If you drive down Enfield park road you will now see branches and other green stuff being thrown over walls - I wonder who is going to address this? Is it something that should be ignored because it is creating a good wildlife habitat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 Still wondering if you can get a discount if your garden backs onto council land and you have to put the leaves from the trees on the council land into your green bin. There are alternative use for the green bin though. 1. a water proof golf trolley, already has wheels and will fit a goodly selection of clubs with the added bonus of a lid so that if it does rain your clubs don't get waterlogged. all you need to do is drill a few drain holes in the bottom for the odd drop of rain that does get in. 2. trim the sides and front off and turn it into a handy garden truck or wheelbarrow. 3.attach it to the side of your shed and use it to store garden tools in thus freeing up room in your shed for a few more old bikes. 4. fit drawers to the front and make a handy tool chest that you can wheel around when you need it. lots of uses the green bin could be put to other than garden waste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, Evil Sid said: Still wondering if you can get a discount if your garden backs onto council land and you have to put the leaves from the trees on the council land into your green bin. There are alternative use for the green bin though. 1. a water proof golf trolley, already has wheels and will fit a goodly selection of clubs with the added bonus of a lid so that if it does rain your clubs don't get waterlogged. all you need to do is drill a few drain holes in the bottom for the odd drop of rain that does get in. 2. trim the sides and front off and turn it into a handy garden truck or wheelbarrow. 3.attach it to the side of your shed and use it to store garden tools in thus freeing up room in your shed for a few more old bikes. 4. fit drawers to the front and make a handy tool chest that you can wheel around when you need it. lots of uses the green bin could be put to other than garden waste Very inventive Sid - you'll rival Sarah on the TV programme 'Money for Nothing' she hangs around tips and takes rubbish that people are throwing away and then often sells them for mega bucks. Perhaps you could earn a living knocking on people's doors who no longer want green bins and creating stuff? And your answers I think are NO and NO - compost the leaves and recycle them in your compost green bin - you can then wheel your compost around the garden after a few weeks to where it is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 On 11/25/2016 at 9:26 PM, Sha said: There was a "fully costed business plan" re the sell off of Walton Hall, with a questionable procurement procedure and fabricated figures. With those who put these plans together still working for WBC how could we be expected to believe without question the present Town Centre plans? As grey-man says WBC are not being open and transparent about their plans. Paul, re your 'controversial thought' on the Town Hall - is there something you know which hasn't been revealed to the general public? WBC have raised £150 million in 'bonds' £100 million of which they have retained to ensure the Regeneration plans will be carried out. Seems to me to be a very risky business and could leave the Warrington public with huge debt for the next 40 years. Will the buildings they are planning to throw up be still standing in 40 years or will they have been demolished long before the debt is paid? One of the loans they've taken out has a term of 60 years at an interest of about 4 percent. It's for £25 million, probably the cost of the new offices that is such a closely guarded secret. By my reckoning that's a total repayment of £68 million for the term. If you assume the new offices are a discretionary project and you factor in the opportunity cost of using the town centre land they'll occupy for something that generates revenue, they start to look very expensive, even if you assume they can divest their current estate at whatever projected value they've assigned it. We could ask questions about it but because they're keeping all the facts away from scrutiny, the only way we'll ever know anything is if it all goes tits up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 Apart from anything, I question the morality of lumbering the town with a 60 year loan, or even 40, what right have the council got to put the next two generations of Warringtonians into debt so they can play around with big piles of borrowed money in 2017? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.