Agenda item

To deal with the following questions to the Executive Leader and / or other Executive Members, in accordance with Standing Order 10(a):

 

(i)         To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Hyman:

            “Would the Executive Leader confirm the % increase in Council Tax implemented between 1999 and 2003 and contrast that with the present administration’s performance?”

 

(ii)        To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Hyman:

            “Would the Executive Leader comment on the adequacy of job advisory services in the City and in particular detail the work undertaken by Future Prospects during the year?”

 

(iii)       To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Holvey:

            “Would the Leader agree to ask – now that capacity problems at the monitoring suite at the police station have been resolved – for a report on the options for modernisation and extension of CCTV coverage in the City to be prepared and would he say what obstacles there could be to the extension of the service into suburban shopping areas?”

 

(iv)      To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Holvey:

            “Would the Executive Leader indicate what options for funding the government backed Waste and Highways PFI projects he is considering?  Would he say what the consequences would be if either of these projects did not go ahead?”

 

(v)       To the Executive Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Moore:

            “Would the Executive Member comment on claims that the costs of the new City Hall offices which are to be built for the Council are ‘spiralling’ and would he detail what the financial implications for the project are expected to be for Council Taxpayers over the next 20 years?”

 

(vi)      To the Executive Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Moore:

            “Would the Executive Member indicate how Council Tax collection rates are progressing and contrast this with performance in previous years and with other authorities?”

 

(vii)     To the Executive Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Hill:

“In view of the tight restrictions to be placed upon the use of alternative commercial accommodation at Clifton Moor, what does the future hold for the Parkside Centre’s commercial tenants?”

 

(viii)    To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Simpson-Laing:

“Can the Executive Member explain the present situation regarding the inadequate ticket machines on the ftr?”

 

(ix)      To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Simpson-Laing:

“Can the Executive Member inform Members when the Council plans to draw up planning guidelines to stop or reduce the sub-division of family and terraced houses?”

 

(x)       To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Potter:

“Can the Executive Member for City Strategy confirm how many existing residential streets have been adopted since 2003, and how many have been requested for adoption by residents?”

 

(xi)      To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Vassie:

“Would the Executive Member compare – in real terms – car parking charges, which are proposed to apply for the forthcoming year, with those approved by the previous administration?  Would she detail the increase in car parking charges applied during the period 1999-2003 with those that have been made during the course of the present administration?”

 

(xii)     To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Vassie:

“Would the Executive Member compare the investment made by the present Council in highways maintenance with that of the previous administration?”

 

(xiii)    To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Vassie:

“Would the Executive Member detail the increase in the use of public transport in the City achieved over the last 4 years?”

 

(xiv)    To the Executive Member for Adult Social Services, from Cllr Greenwood:

“Would the Executive Member say how long social services clients are waiting in York for care services to be allocated and contrast this with the performance in previous years and with other authorities?”

 

(xv)     To the Executive Member for Housing, from Cllr Hill:

“Has the City of York Council Housing department lost the confidence of its tenants?”

 

(xvi)    To the Executive Member for Leisure & Culture, from Cllr Lancelott:

“Would the Executive Member please confirm how much the Council will receive from the sale of the lease of the Barbican auditorium to Absolute Leisure compared to the offer received, and supported by, the Council’s Executive in 2002?”

 

(xvii)   To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr D’Agorne:

“When will a report be brought forward setting out a timescale and strategy for offering waste recycling collections from apartments and similar developments within the City?”

 

(xviii)  To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr D’Agorne:

“How many days do you consider is reasonable time to elapse following the end of a period of flooding before the riverside cycle / footpaths to the south of the City are cleared of mud?”

 

(xix)    To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr D’Agorne:

“When do you expect the leaves / detritus from 2006 might be removed from City paths, verges and gutters?”

In accordance with Standing Order 10(c)(i), the following questions were put and responses given:

 

(i)         To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Hyman:

“Would the Executive Leader confirm the % increase in Council Tax implemented between 1999 and 2003 and contrast that with the present administration’s performance?”

 

            The Executive Leader replied:

 

	Band D	£ Rise	% Rise
	£ pa
1996/97 First year of Unitary Council	528.90
1997/98	552.44		4.5%
1998/99	620.91		12.4%
1999/00	639.23		3.0%
2000/01	687.16	47.93	7.50%
2001/02	728.06	40.90	5.95%
2002/03	778.16	50.10	6.88%
2003/04	824.62	46.46	5.97%
Increase over Period =	824.62 -	639.23 =	£185.39 (29.00%)
2003/04 Indicative~	782.12
2004/05	848.75	66.63	8.52%
2005/06	890.81	42.06	4.96%
2006/07	939.77	48.96	5.50%
2007/08 *	982.06	42.29	4.50%
Increase over Period =	982.06 -	782.12 =	£199.94 (25.56%)
* Provisional
~Figures adjusted for introduction of separate Fire precept

“Thus the increase in Council Tax has slowed during the course of the present administration compared to the last.”

 

(ii)        To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Hyman:

            “Would the Executive Leader comment on the adequacy of job advisory services in the City and in particular detail the work undertaken by Future Prospects during the year?”

 

            The Executive Leader replied:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“For adults, the main statutory provider of job advice is JobCentre Plus, and I cannot comment on the adequacy of their service.  However, they are also the provider of various unemployment benefits and are often charged with moving people off benefits rather than providing impartial advice on employment. Future Prospects provides advice which  is free and impartial with the addition of extra support in the form of benefits advice and what are called "better off calculations" to enable clients to understand the connection between benefits and wages.  As the graph demonstrates, the total number of cases addressed by Future Prospects over the last 3 years represents an increase compared to previous years.Future Prospects has been particularly successful in supplementing its council grant with additional earned income which has allowed it to expand its activities to meet demand.”

 

(iii)       To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Holvey:

            “Would the Leader agree to ask – now that capacity problems at the monitoring suite at the police station have been resolved – for a report on the options for modernisation and extension of CCTV coverage in the City to be prepared and would he say what obstacles there could be to the extension of the service into suburban shopping areas?”

 

            The Executive Leader replied:

 

“I have asked officers to look into the possibility of extending and modernising the City centre CCTV network taking advantage of new technologies (the so called WiFi/Mesh system). It is possible that this would prove to be a project which could be resourced from the Venture Fund.  Provision has been made in the draft Council budget for a trial extension of the CCTV system to one of the suburbs – probably to a shopping area with a proven record of anti social behaviour. Although use of hi definition technologies would be very expensive in such a situation I am confident that we will be able to provide at least a basic system which will assist Police operations in the area.”

 

 

 (iv)     To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Holvey:

            “Would the Executive Leader indicate what options for funding the government backed Waste and Highways PFI projects he is considering?  Would he say what the consequences would be if either of these projects did not go ahead?”

 

            The Executive Leader replied:

 

“The Council's estimated costs are very dependant upon the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) which is landfilled.  Because of recent highly successful recycling initiatives the difference between budgets and likely costs is expected to decrease (officers are currently revising costs) compared to the last published figures. 

If the Council does not undertake the Waste PFI procurement the estimated costs to the Council would be much higher - £195M - over the life of the project (as shown in the Executive report to September 06).  Members would therefore need to set aside additional amounts in the budget to fund this way forward.

 

The level of Landfill Tax that has been paid to the central government:

2006/07 (£21 per tonne)	£1,365k (est)
2005/05 (£18 per tonne)	£1,333k
2004/05 (£15 per tonne)	£1,241k

 

These exclude Commercial Waste tonnages which are funded from income (£200k to £240k per annum)

We have received some grants from government to relieve spending pressures on Waste these have totaled:

2006/07	£407k
2005/06	£260k
2004/05	£437k (included £350k for Hazel Court)

To fund the Waste PFI project my expectation is that we will need to have rebated all of the Landfill Tax which we currently pay to central government.

As far as the Highways PFI is concerned, we have submitted an Expression of Interest to the Government in September of last year to become a pathfinder authority for highway maintenance PFI project. 

That project would see an additional £500m of investment being made in the council's roads, footways, street lights, drainage and bridges over a 25 year period.  This would fund a dramatic improvement in highways standards raising them to amongst the best in the world.

The majority of the funding would come from the government in the form of "credits" that are, in effect, an annual grant to the council. 

The remaining funding would be met from the £8m revenue and capital funding the council already spends each year on its roads and footways.

There is a requirement for a further £0.5m/annum of additional funding that was identified in the report to the Urgency committee.  My expectation is that this funding will come from the economies we will see as the pay protection for job evaluation unwinds and/or from the benefits of the reduced costs that we will incur when we move to the New City Hall offices.

Despite repeated requests DfT have yet to come to a decision about which local authorities they will invite to prepare an outline business case.”

 

(v)       To the Executive Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Moore:

            “Would the Executive Member comment on claims that the costs of the new City Hall offices which are to be built for the Council are ‘spiralling’ and would he detail what the financial implications for the project are expected to be for Council Taxpayers over the next 20 years?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“Costs are not spiraling despite Labour claims.  A full due diligence check of the estimated cost and available funding was carried out in the summer of 2006 and the capital cost of the project was reported to the Executive on 10th October 2006 as £35.71M.  Over the 30 year project life, the cash saving generated by the project will be in excess of £30M. 

The Net Present Value of thatsaving is £3.7M at today's prices when compared to the existing budget.”

 

(vi)      To the Executive Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Moore:

            “Would the Executive Member indicate how Council Tax collection rates are progressing and contrast this with performance in previous years and with other authorities?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“When the new administration took office in 2003, the "in year" collection rate for council tax for the year 2002/03 had been 97.4% making York 171 out of 354 councils in the country and a top quartile unitary at number 11.  This performance can only be achieved by following up everyone who doesn't pay regularly.  Members will recall that in the summer of 2003 the SX3 system which is used to manage Council Tax collection was commissioned and thanks to the lack of project management by the previous administration the result was very disruptive to the services.

The collection rate in York for 2003/04 fell to 93.5% putting us at number 327 in the country and 41st Unitary out of 47.  With a significant amount of hard work by a dedicated band of staff we have slowly climbed back:

þ     2004/05 95.1% collected, position 308 in the country and 34th unitary;

þ     2005/06 96.1% collected, position 284 in the country and 32nd unitary;

Projected position this year end:

þ     2006/07         97.1% collected, position 222 in the country and 18th unitary.

I look forward to further improvement over the next few years adding at least another 1% to our figure.  It must be remembered that collection of earlier years continues after year end with only a small amount finally having to be written off as uncollectible.”

           

(vii)     To the Executive Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Hill:

“In view of the tight restrictions to be placed upon the use of alternative commercial accommodation at Clifton Moor, what does the future hold for the Parkside Centre’s commercial tenants?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“There are currently 12 tenants at Parkside.  The York Eco Business Centre at Clifton Moor is planned for completion in December this year.  Six of the existing tenants run businesses which are suitable to relocate at Clifton Moor, but six can not go there because their operations generate noise, fumes and dust.  Some of the latter six will be able to move to premises at 35 Hospital Fields Road but some will not.

The council has encouraged those tenants who can not be accommodated at either of the above sites, to register with the Inward Investment Board, york-england.com.  The Inward Investment Board keeps an up to date register of all available sites and, if asked, will assist firms to find suitable premises when they are facing relocation.”

 

(viii)    To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Simpson-Laing:

“Can the Executive Member explain the present situation regarding the inadequate ticket machines on the ftr?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“First have already acknowledged the problems regarding the ticket machines.  They are introducing more customer hosts who will process pre purchased tickets and sell tickets on board while they decide what steps to take in the longer term.”

           

(ix)      To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Simpson-Laing:

“Can the Executive Member inform Members when the Council plans to draw up planning guidelines to stop or reduce the sub-division of family and terraced houses?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“The issue of the conversion of terraces houses and other properties into flats will be considered as part of the on going work on the Local Development Framework. More specifically it is proposed this will be considered as part of the production of the Development Control Development Plan Document. The inclusion of suitable policy approach within a development plan document will clearly have considerably more weight than a draft SPG.”

 

*(x)      To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Potter:

“Can the Executive Member for City Strategy confirm how many existing residential streets have been adopted since 2003, and how many have been requested for adoption by residents?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“Members will no doubt be aware that prior to 2003 there was no policy or budget funding to respond to the requests from residents who wished to have their roads adopted.   We have therefore had to spend time in developing a policy and have only recently been in a position to write to residents seeking their views on a way forward.

Officers have so far written to residents in 12 roads outlining the policy and asking for expressions of interest.   There is no street, so far, where a majority of residents have expressed interest in seeking adoption at the present time.”

 

*Note: Cllr Merrett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the above question at this stage, as a resident of a private street, and left the room whilst the question was under discussion.

 

(xi)      To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Vassie:

“Would the Executive Member compare – in real terms – car parking charges, which are proposed to apply for the forthcoming year, with those approved by the previous administration?  Would she detail the increase in car parking charges applied during the period 1999-2003 with those that have been made during the course of the present administration?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“I am pleased to remind Council of the actual car park charges that have applied since 1999.”

 

		99/00	2000-2001	2001- 2002	2002-2003	2003-2004	4 year %	2004-2005	2005-2006	2006-2007	2007-2008	4 year %
a)Visitor
Short Stay - Castle	0.80	0.90	1.00	1.20	1.40	1.60	78%	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	25%
Short Stay - Other	0.70	0.80	0.90	1.10	1.30	1.50	88%	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	33%
Standard Stay	0.60	0.70	0.80	1.00	1.20	1.30	86%	1.30	1.30	1.30	1.30	0%
On Street		0.70	0.80	0.90	1.10	1.30	86%	1.40	1.40	1.40	1.40	8%
Foss Bank	0.60	0.70	0.80	1.00	1.20	1.20	71%	1.20	0.70	0.70	0.70	-42%
Evening (14 hours)		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00
b) Resident
Short Stay - Castle	0.70	0.80	0.90	1.10	1.10	1.30	63%	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	31%
Short Stay - Other	0.60	0.70	0.80	1.00	1.00	1.20	71%	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	42%
Standard Stay	0.50	0.60	0.70	0.90	0.90	1.00	67%	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0%
On Street		0.70	0.80	0.90	1.10	1.30	86%	1.40	1.40	1.40	1.40	8%
Foss Bank	0.50	0.60	0.70	0.90	0.90	0.90	50%	0.90	0.70	0.70	0.70	-22%
Evening (14 hours)		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00

 

“This demonstrates that the present administration has – contrary to some claims – reduced in real terms the vast majority of car parking charges in the City centre during its term of office. This contrasts with the draconian increases implemented by our predecessors.

York’s standard say car parks are now cheaper than in many other neighbouring towns and comparable Cities:”

 

	Ave cost per hour	York resident pays per hour	York cheaper by
Cambridge.	£1.45	£1.00	31%	80p (just one car park) £140/£1.50 an hour - more on Saturdays and higher charges for stays of longer than 5 hours.
Leeds.	£1.35	£1.00	26%	£1.20 - £1.50 an hour up to 22.00
Sheffield.	£1.15	£1.00	13%	95p/£1.15/£1.35 an hour up to 20.30. On street starts at 45p for 20 mins.
Harrogate.	£1.05	£1.00	5%	90p - £1.20 an hour.   Evening charge £1.00

 

[Supplementary – written response promised]

 

(xii)     To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Vassie:

“Would the Executive Member compare the investment made by the present Council in highways maintenance with that of the previous administration?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

1999/00	00/01	2001- 2002	2002-2003	2003-2004	4 year total	2004-2005	2005-2006	2006-2007	2007-2008	4 year total	% increase
£K	£K	£K	£K	£K		£K	£K	£K	£K	£K
5,458	5,156	6,003	6,764	7008	24,932	7,790	8,358	8,320	8,100	32,569	+31%

“We were able to increase investment in highways maintenance in our first 2 budgets, despite the poor Government settlement, above the rate of inflation.   For the current year we have held steady but the savings made on the new highway maintenance tender has allowed us to do extra work this year.

There has been an improvement to the overall condition of the highway.   The backlog to bring all grade 3 highways up to grade 1 now stands at £27.625m a decrease of just under £2m. The proposed budget for 07/08 shows a small decrease in the allocation but this saving is more than offset by the savings on the highways maintenance tender and we will be carrying out more work for less money in 07/08.

Roads and footpaths are now in a better condition overall than when we formed our administration in 2003. Success with the PFI bid would allow us to become a world leader in terms of transport infrastructure quality.”

 

[Supplementary – written response promised]

 

(xiii)    To the Executive Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Vassie:

“Would the Executive Member detail the increase in the use of public transport in the City achieved over the last 4 years?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

 

 

“Bus patronage has grown by 45% in five years and Members will see the significant rise in 2003/04 from 12 million to 14.5 million bus passengers per year and we exceeded our LTP 1 target at the end of 2005/06 by over 2.5 million passengers a year.  Park and Ride figures show a steady increase but I am delighted that, for the first time we have carried 3 million passengers in the last year keeping an estimated 1.3 million cars out of the city.”

 

(xiv)    To the Executive Member for Adult Social Services, from Cllr Greenwood:

“Would the Executive Member say how long social services clients are waiting in York for care services to be allocated and contrast this with the performance in previous years and with other authorities?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“The maximum length of time that a customer should wait for the provision of services, once an assessment has been made, is laid down by government and is measured at less than or equal to 4 weeks.

The most recent set of figures for 2005/06 shows that York was similar to the average for Unitary Authorities at 85% of assessments completed within the timescale. 

However, the latest set of figures shows that at the end of December York was achieving 87.20%.

The table below compares York with other authorities in England, Unitary Authorities and authorities in The Yorkshire and Humber Region.”

 

Year	York Figure	Other Local Authority Averages (%)
	( %)	England	Unitary	Yorkshire & Humber
2005/2006	85	87	85	88
2004/2005	85	84	81	85
2003/2004	82	81	81	85

 

 

[Note: In the absence of Cllr Sunderland, this question was answered be answered by Cllr Sue Galloway]

 

(xv)     To the Executive Member for Housing, from Cllr Hill:

“Has the City of York Council Housing department lost the confidence of its tenants?”

 

            In the absence of Cllr Sunderland, the Executive Member for Housing, Cllr Sue Galloway replied:

 

“No.”

 

(xvi)    To the Executive Member for Leisure & Culture, from Cllr Lancelott:

“Would the Executive Member please confirm how much the Council will receive from the sale of the lease of the Barbican auditorium to Absolute Leisure compared to the offer received, and supported by, the Council’s Executive in 2002?”

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“The offer figure from Absolute Leisure has always been £750,000. This has never changed at any point in the negotiations although they have agreed to pay an additional £15k for the fittings and equipment.  In addition they are completely refurbishing the auditorium at a cost estimated to be in excess of £2 million.”

 

(xvii)   To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr D’Agorne:

“When will a report be brought forward setting out a timescale and strategy for offering waste recycling collections from apartments and similar developments within the City?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“The key issue of when box based kerbside collections for recycling can be rolled out to the 15,000 York properties is that of availability of resources. Estimates are that in order to achieve this we would need in the region of £330,000 to fund this roll out, for which we estimate that less than 10% of this could be recouped from reductions in landfill waste from these areas.

Therefore there is a review of the waste strategy currently being undertaken by officers. The result of this work will be a revised waste strategy for York whilst issues such as the rollout of recycling to all areas will be included along with options to improve the current delivery arrangements for refuse and recycling collections. It is thought that a draft report will be ready by the early part of the summer and members will be consulted.  This work will also need to consider the outcome of the Lyons Review which will impact on local authority spending, and it should be noted that York receives just 25% of its landfill tax back in revenue support for the recycling service, this year amount to just £400,000 from the £1.6 million sent to central government.

I would urge Cllr D’Agorne to join with me in calling for central government to give a greater return of York’s Landfill tax payments, in order that even more recycling services can be operated in the city.”

 

(xviii)  To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr D’Agorne:

“How many days do you consider is reasonable time to elapse following the end of a period of flooding before the riverside cycle / footpaths to the south of the City are cleared of mud?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“Council staff have been working extremely hard throughout the recent periods of flooding to clear footpaths of mud. The sequence for removal is for Kings Staith to be cleared to Tower Gardens followed by Almery Terrace, Clementhorpe, Skeldergate and Rowntree Park.

We normally begin work the same day, as soon as the car park and Staithes are clear of water.

Under the normal sequence, full clearance takes between a week and 10 days, but this can be delayed due to repeat flooding by the river before the clearance has been complete.

Following the recent flood alert, New Walk was cleared on the evening of 23rd January 07.The last “All Clear” flood situation for area 135801 (Kings Staith, Queens Staith, South Esplanade and New Walk) ha been given by the Environment Agency at 14:49 on 23rd January 07.”

 

(xix)    To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr D’Agorne:

“When do you expect the leaves / detritus from 2006 might be removed from City paths, verges and gutters?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

 

“The fall of leaves from trees in the city was later than normal last year due to the unusually warm weather conditions experienced.

The Council has had two dedicated manual teams and two large mechanical sweepers working to remove leaves and to date 423 tonnes have been collected in total.

If there are areas where leaves are still on the ground members are asked to contact the YPAL action line and we will deal with this promptly.

Members are aware that a new street cleaning service is being piloted in the west area of the city and so far we have seen a 5% improvement in the condition of street and open spaces which is encouraging as this is the most difficult time of the year to maintain these areas. It is hoped that the new street cleaning service will be rolled out to all areas of the city by the early part of the spring 2007 which will have a further positive impact on the cleanliness of our city.

During the last few weeks with the high winds there have been a small number of calls to remove leaves which have been blown from sheltered areas not on the highway.”