I see they're going for the Maximum allowed before Government capping
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/hartlepool-council-tax-increase-proposed-after-ruthless-government-funding-cut-1-7659750
Although the Government's 'living wage' will have an impact on the council's costs in the longer term, this is not true for next year as the council's own living wage, introduced a couple of years ago, already pays more than the Government's phased introduction.
Incidentally, the council unions rejected the council's plans designed to help pay for their own scheme and as a result the cost of it had to be covered by taking money from elsewhere in the council's budget.
I make that 39 times the rate of inflation.
Sharpening my pitchfork, waiting for the invite to the revolution.
The Official Press Release:
Government cuts may lead to rise in Council Tax
Published Wednesday, 6th January 2016
The announcement just before Christmas that Hartlepool Council is to lose a further £2.1m in Government grant for 2016/17 – on top of the £2.8m reduction it was already anticipating could lead to a rise in Council Tax from April.
The authority is also reeling from the loss of £3.9m in Business Rates every year following a recent decision by the Valuation Office Agency to reduce Business Rates paid by Hartlepool Power Station.
In a report to the Council's Finance & Policy Committee which meets on Monday 11 January, the Council's Corporate Management Team – led by Chief Executive Gill Alexander – is recommending an overall increase of 3.9% to ensure a "sustainable financial strategy".
Hartlepool Council has been able to freeze Council Tax for the last five years – the only Tees Valley council to do so – but the report states that the Government acknowledges that the era of Council Tax freezes are now over.
The report says that previously councils were encouraged by the Government to freeze Council Tax and received a financial incentive to do so. However, this is no longer the case due to a change in Government policy which is also
shifting the responsibility for funding social care from itself to councils.
This policy change is recognition by the Government of the financial pressures in Adult Social Care services, including the impact of the Government National Minimum Wage which comes into effect in April 2016.
From this April, the Government's settlement announcement
assumes that local councils will increase the level of Council Tax by 3.9% per annum – inclusive of the Government's new 2% Social Care Levy.
This means that councils that choose not implement a 3.9% rise have to find additional savings each year over and above the savings already identified.
If councillors agree to the rise, the report says that the Council will be able to fund the remaining loss in Government grant through savings and the use of 'one-off' resources.
The report highlights that a 3.9% increase will result in the large majority of households (72% in Bands A and B) facing an increase of 83p per week. For the 96% of households receiving Local Council Tax Support, the increase will be no more than 10p per week.
It also says that further significant cuts in Government grant are on the way and that by 2019/20, Hartlepool Council will have seen its funding cut by two-thirds (£38m) compared to 2011/12 when the austerity cuts were first introduced.
Councillor Christopher Akers-Belcher, the Leader of Hartlepool Borough Council described the Government's financial settlement as a "ruthless attack" on the people of Hartlepool.
He added: "The further Government grant reduction announced in December and changes in Government policy in relation to how councils are funded have left councillors with some incredibly tough decisions and stark choices.
"This comes at a time when we have set out our ambitions for taking the town forward for the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors, but we will not be beaten in our endeavours.
"The Council has managed to freeze Council Tax in Hartlepool for the last five years but the ongoing immense financial pressures being imposed by the Government and their change in Council Tax policy means difficult choices need to be made regarding the level of Council Tax and service cuts.
"I am sure there will be a very open, frank and meaningful debate at Monday's Finance & Policy Committee and whatever recommendations are reached will be subject to a meeting and final decision involving all 33 councillors at a meeting of the Full Council on 18 February."
Press release PR16314. 6 January 2016.
Issued by Alastair Rae, Public Relations Manager, on 01429 523510.
Double bluff? Sweeten the pill by 'only' increasing it by 1.9% or do people think Labour will go for the full 3.9% Obviously we can debate it all night next month but they'll have already decided what they'll do.
I think given the coalition are pretty much assured control of the council until at least 2018 they'll probably just whack it up by the full 3.9%
Quote from: Land Phil on January 06, 2016, 05: PM
Sharpening my pitchfork, waiting for the invite to the revolution.
We just need to remember what happened when the people of Hartlepool turned up for Full Council Meetings...... to be blunt about it.
The LabTor Mobs A**s`s fell out & it resulted in Lying Ste & Cranney making a spectacle of themselves.
The only way to bring about change is to do something about whats going on, even if that is 1 night a month in the Kremlin.
Come March time, any candidates who are planning to stand against LabTor Councillors will need help in leafleting, knocking on doors canvasing, even a donation to election expenses.
Lets face it, we either get together to act & vote tactically
(even if the candidate in your ward isn`t someone you would normally vote for) to get shot of the likes of Lying Ste & Cwis or we end up with another 4 years of this shower.
Quote from: DRiddle on January 06, 2016, 07: PM
Double bluff? Sweeten the pill by 'only' increasing it by 1.9% or do people think Labour will go for the full 3.9% Obviously we can debate it all night next month but they'll have already decided what they'll do.
I think given the coalition are pretty much assured control of the council until at least 2018 they'll probably just whack it up by the full 3.9%
If they do, it will provide a massive focal point for opposition councillors & candidates in May`s elections to seize onto.
Please note the last paragraph.
The Finance and Policy Committee will meet on Monday 11th January. Scheduled to start at 0930.
Everybody who is able to attend should do so. Unlike Council Meetings you AREallowed to ask questions.
Yeah see u there.... it would be good to get 20 or 30 people there.... to ask those running the council, questions about about the way they spend council tax payers money
Like many others I will struggle to get time off work but will do my best to be at the full council meeting.
I do hope the full meeting turns into a public protest.
I am sure there will be no opportunity for anything else in the face of the blinding ignorance of Mary. "I am Mary Fleet" and that hand up my ar** operating me says no democracy again.
Reading the article again I am offended at the use of the word ruthless.
It should read ruthless spending as bill payers suffer even further.
Is Mark Payne a puppet, wimp or both ?
Time to shut down non essential services, scrap all visions and put food on the table.
Seeing little Iain's article about trains shows he obviously doesn't keep up with what is going on in the town, just his little world.
Has he not heard about the proposed crippling council tax rise ?
Speaking of our trains. I've mentioned before that Middlesborough's MP Andy MacDonald has been on the case for ages trying to get a direct train to London for Boro.
He's front bench in the Labour Party now. . . Interesting post he's been allocated.
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/middlesbrough-mp-andy-mcdonald-named-10698934
No prizes for guessing how this could end in terms of a train from Teesside to London.
Just on the issue specifically of the potential 3.9% hike in council tax, what are people's views? I've firmly nailed my colours to the 'don't raise it' mast, which should be confirmed in The Mail today or tomorrow.
My main reasons are (a)It was crazily high 5 years ago and even though it hasn't risen much lately, it's still really high now. And (b)Any authority willing or able to fund a company started by Angie Wilcox and Kevin Cranney to the tune of a million quid, has a damn cheek asking residents for even more money and crying poverty.
The last time I checked, it wasn't David Cameron who funded 'WCNE' a million quid and allowed the money to go through the payroll system of MRA.
I doubt the quote of mine above will find it's way on Labours election leaflets like the one I made about the hospital trust. ::)
Quote from: Land Phil on January 07, 2016, 10: PM
Seeing little Iain's article about trains shows he obviously doesn't keep up with what is going on in the town, just his little world.
Has he not heard about the proposed crippling council tax rise ?
He said he was going to Newcastle to see Star Wars, isn't it showing at our local cinema?
Quote from: Riddler5 on January 09, 2016, 10: PM
He said he was going to Newcastle to see Star Wars, isn't it showing at our local cinema?
I suspect it was deliberate (if it did happen) and done so he could drag out the only argument he knows about local trains (Pacers are old) in the hope no one would notice he is talking merde. The very least problem with local trains is the age of the stock. Perhaps more trains after 21:00 might be more important? Local politicians are completely clueless how anyone without their access to free petrol and railway tickets on expenses get about the area.
http://m.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/councillor-hits-out-at-council-tax-hike-plan-1-7666233
Funny i thought it was the Tory governments fault that increases would have to be implemented to cover cuts.Be interesting to hear the alternatives .Another meeting Mr Riddle couldn't attend.This from a man who declared he wouldn't put himself forward to be a Councillor unless he could give 100%,and isn't The Mail terrible,unless you want to use it for self promotion.p.s.hows the campaign against the building of the houses on a possible significant historical part of Hartlepool?.Suppose it's not a big enough political point scorer.
The meetings tomorrow. A Monday. I'll be busy working for a living to ensure I can afford to pay my council tax ;)
Note the Mail have 'buried' this story on an inside page whilst the front page has really important local stories like the fact it may snow during the winter-with 2 articles on this unexpected event!
Quote from: pensionater on January 10, 2016, 04: PM
Funny i thought it was the Tory governments fault that increases would have to be implemented to cover cuts.Be interesting to hear the alternatives .
Don't award council funding to your low IQ (a Hartlepool Labour Party entry requirement) councillor mates might be one alternative.
This is not an exhaustive list; I could go on. However, while the current financial straits of HBC can be partly attributed to the policies of the current Government there's a lot to be said for putting your own house in order first before you start whining about it.
* HBC continues to pay the cost of employing full-time union officials as well as providing their office facilities even though council staff are estimated to pay around £250,000 a year in union subscriptions. UNISON, the main beneficiaries of this policy, are currently the Labour Party's largest contributors and currently sponsors several local councillors.
* Councillors managed to slip in a pay rise for themselves last year on the back of an increase for council staff. Meanwhile, councillors like Jim Ainslie are still picking up over £384 each time they chair a quarterly, two-hour neighbourhood forum.
* It's estimated that scrapping the local plan has cost the council £1.5m. As yet, there is no definite completion date for its replacement.
* £1.5m is also the cost of HBC's purchase of Jacksons Landing which it did partly through using a £1m two-year interest free loan; the other 500,000 came from its own funds.. When the chance came to defer £100,000 of the repayment to a later date, the council chose to spend the money on employing new Enforcement Officers (for the most part in Owton Manor) rather than use it to mitigate the effects of cuts elsewhere.
* Despite receiving £325,000 grant from the Big Lottery fund and allocating £75,000 of its own money for the Waverley Allotment Project, the council was forced to find another £21,000 after it realised that it had forgotten to include a disabled toilet in the plans. It took the money from the capital budget for Respite Care which provides a much need break for in-family carers.
* Despite headlines in The Mail of a cash windfall from the Seaton Domes which would be spent on everything from free swimming sessions for kids to helping to pay off the Jacksons landing loan no cash ever appeared. Jumping the gun meant that HBC was forced to find the money to pay for the swimming sessions from elsewhere.
* Without explanation, HBC waived its right to approx £800,000 on '106 money' which would normally have been paid by the Wynyard Housing Developer. It then went on to waive another £27,000 which should have come from the 12 houses being built on the former King Oswy Pub site financed by SENECA. '106 money' from the Masefield Road development, which normally would have gone to local schools has been used to plant a 'community orchard' of Apple and Plum trees.
* Hartlepool Council paid out £433,076 in car mileage allowances to staff in 2014/15 for a claimed 824,908 miles of travel - the equivalent of driving around the equator 34 times. HBC pays more than HMRC considers 'reasonable'.
* The now infamous 'Cafe in the Crem' cost HBC £400,000 to set up and has now lost money every year since it opened though the council is reluctant to tell us how much.
* The launch of 'The Vision' is estimated to have cost £150,000 for the consultants and glossy brochures. It's not been revealed as yet what the cost of the consultant led feasibility study into the recently trailed Stem Centre has been but it's reckoned to be around £40,000.
All parts of the Vision have one thing in common - they continue to rack up costs without a single brick having been laid.
I reckon £6m is the equivalent to about a 15% council tax increase.
http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/article_put%20your%20own%20house%20in%20order.htm
"Cranney was up for re-election the following May and so it was decided to use council money to buy the bakery from DISC as the only way to stop the development going ahead. The end cost was in the region of £150,000"
The £150,000 was to purchase the bakery, add to that the cost of removing the work done by DISC, legal fees, architects fees & the conversion into a pair of semi detached house, I reckon your up to the £250,000 mark.
They talk about Masterplans & Visions & they haven`t managed to convert an old bakery into a pair of semi`s in 12 months, delusional fools, who have no idea of the real value of the council tax they so wantonly waste.
Would they be as keen on spending their own money as readily as they are spending ours, I very much doubt it.
I reckon by the time the Police and Fire Brigade add their precepts we could be well on the way to 4.5%
Correct me if I am wrong the Council Tax rise will not impact every one as I believe a great many of the town don't pay the full amount as they are on benefits, which could include Cranneys and Belchers wards and a few others.
Everybody pays SOME council tax, even those in receipt of every benefit going (and I mean that with no offence to people on benefits). But it's the people on 'middle incomes' who are being squeezed the hardest by this.
Think of it like a 'bell shaped' graph.
Those on the left side of the bell (as you start to draw it), the very low earners, will barely notice the rise because, as you said, their subsidies will kick in and it'll be a few pence per week.
Those on the right side of the bell (as you finish drawing it) are the high earners. They'll be annoyed but the rise for top band houses is likely to be 'un noticed' by people on good money.
Me, you (I'm guessing) and the vast, VAST majority of people are in the middle part of the bell, the wide fat bit. We pay our own way, get by, have SOME disposable income, but we're being squeezed.
In many respects we're the ones who'll feel the rise most. Even MORE in some respects than the low earners at the bottom of the bell.
It's a VERY dangerous approach to keep squeezing the middle. Principally because hard working middle income people will eventually 'cut back' on their spending. We'll stop going to that restaurant for a meal, we'll put off having that new set of double glazing put in, we won't trade in our cars for a newer one.
When that starts happening, and I'd say it already is, every single business and service in Hartlepool will suffer lost trade. The knock on effect of that (businesses closing, job losses, lost business rates, MORE people having to reply on benefits etc.) can be cataclysmic. Especially for an area which already has high unemployment and social deprivation.
Mark my words, this decision from Akers-Belcher is far, FAR, more dangerous to the towns economy than people realise. He seems intent on turning Hartlepool into a British Detroit.
It certainly impacts on people with fixed incomes, pensioners etc, the annoyance is when you look at Cwis & Lying Ste's income from councillors allowances alone it will be bordering on £35,000 +
Take a look through the councillors Register of Interests, it would appear that the majority of LabTor Clowncillors have no visible means of support, the 1st question on the form is in regards to income.......NONE, is the predominant answer.
Quote from: fred c on January 12, 2016, 07: AM
It certainly impacts on people with fixed incomes, pensioners etc, the annoyance is when you look at Cwis & Lying Ste's income from councillors allowances alone it will be bordering on £35,000 +
Take a look through the councillors Register of Interests, it would appear that the majority of LabTor Clowncillors have no visible means of support, the 1st question on the form is in regards to income.......NONE, is the predominant answer.
Apologies It should have read.
the 1st question on the form is in regards to Employment, Trade , Proffesion, Vocation.......NONE, is the predominant answer.
There will come a point when council tax has to start rising again but with irresponsible spending still going on to the extent that it is then it's hard to argue that we have already reached that point. I think we all know that the same sort of spending will continue because of the people we are dealing with and the fact that such people find spending money a lot more fun than managing it. We have a WONGA council, a 'Buy Now Pay Later' Council - the sort that would even buy a tin shed if offered a no interest credit deal.
Let's face it - too many of them are just plain THICK.
In my opinion people who are in charge of making the kind of decisions a council makes should have to demonstrate or prove their ability and competence to carry out the role before even standing to be elected. Although, I realise this is an 'ideal world' scenario and would never happen. Then again, are the people who vote for them the stupid ones for electing people who are clearly not up to the job?
Regarding the register if interests, I guess like a lot of things with our council, information is 'declared' and there is no system in place to verify that the information is correct. Where is the additional evidence to back up the information provided? I have often questioned if everything that should be declared on these forms has been declared. The answer is probably not, particularly in the case of one person who lives in a very big house and apparently has no 'real' job.
Consider OFCA. According to the register of interests, Cranney has nothing to do with OFCA now. He used to put himself down as 'Funding Advisor' but even that has disappeared since they gave him the Chair of Regeneration. The reality is that his wife works there, several family members sit on the board of OFCA as do the motley pair Sant and Gidney who have sat as fellow directors of God knows how many of Cranney's 26 companies.
Cranney's method is to control by proxy.
I was litening to a radio program about politics in Iran.
To stand you have to hold academic qualifications or alternatively take an exam as part of your application.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Sounds like a good idea to me. There needs to be some sort of screening process before we let people decide how to spend millions of tax payers money. If it's not an exam or academic qualifications then it should be proven stable and successful employment experience along with the appropriate skills and qualities.
People who could string a sentence together would be an improvement on some of our current lot.
An excellent article and the kind we will never likely see in the town's so called Newspaper. It shows very clearly that both a person's wealth and an organisation's wealth are dependent on two things: incomings and outgoings. Both are equally important and the article shows just how little control the council exerts on its outgoings. Spend, spend, spend is a very apt description.
I would like to add one more to an already depressing list of waste. Hartlepool has one of the lowest rates of occupancy of business premises in the country. In Middleton Grange alone, there are over 30 empty units and yet think of how little effort or imagination has been put in by the local council to change this. It would be interesting to see how much in business rates the council misses out on by not seriously tackling this problem.
This is going to be a real issue in the near future as the Government has decided to make changes to the business rates system which will see local councils limited to only keeping the local business rates raised. There will be no favourable adjustment made at Government level, as happens now - not good news if you don't have many businesses.
anyone remember the Portas £100,000 to relaunch the high street? If I remember rightly, our £100,000 went on putting up some garden sheds in Church Square for a few days. Clueless.