County council set to freeze tax but cut 200 jobs

A COUNCIL tax freeze has been proposed by Worcestershire County Council’s cabinet for the next financial year.

The recommendation to accept the Government’s offer of a council tax freeze grant for 2013/14 was universally accepted at the cabinet meeting on Tuesday.

The deal will cost the council £3.3 million based on a 1.9 per cent rise and will now go to a vote at full council on Thursday, February 14. The freeze will keep the average band D council tax bill at £1,440 a year.

Conservative councillor Adrian Hardman, leader of the county council, said: “This is the start of a formal consultation process and we really want to hear Worcestershire residents’ views on what we propose.

None of it is set in stone yet.

“Our Have Your Say roadshows that took place during November and December last year again helped us to identify what our residents feel is most important to them.”

Conservative councillor John Campion, cabinet member for localism and communities, said: “People haven’t seen wages rise or incomes rise so we are taking the steps we can to avoid increasing the pressure on households.”

Of the £1,440 average yearly band D bill, 72 per cent goes to County Hall and the rest is split between the police, fire service, district council and possibly a parish council.

The 2013/14 budget also identified where savings would need to be made. Two hundred jobs will be axed at County Hall as well as £4 million being saved by reduced at-home care for the elderly and vulnerable.

About £1.2 million will be cut from activities for young people and £400,000 will be saved by encouraging more people to volunteer to run services such as libraries.

A budget consultation will now take place until Friday, February 1.

Comments(22)

jon cooper says...
12:10pm Thu 10 Jan 13

How about a cut in allowances for WCC Councillors as directed by the IRP ? Will our councillors dare to reduce their own higher than average allowances on a volunteer basis to help with savings ???? I WON'T be holding my breath !!!!!

I think it's becoming obvious that a selection of our communities in Wyre Forest alone will be expected to run their own services on a volunteer basis. The 'Volunteer' approach seems to have shown considerable success too; one only has to look at the achievements of the magnificent 'The Civic Group' in Stourport, who have worked tirelessly for nothing to achieve a future for the arts in the whole of Wyre Forest. The volunteers hard work and will to compromise has paid off, which has resulted in 'The Civic Group' reaching charity status !

Bearing in mind recent stories of cuts to local services, i have no doubt that other communities will go down the same volunteer route. And if this is the case, the communities that are expected to travel down this road should in fact have tax relief, let alone a tax freeze !

John Campion says...
2:27pm Thu 10 Jan 13

WCC Councillors allowances are in line with IRP recommendations and have been frozen for a number of years.

comberton hill questions says...
6:37pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Mr Campion I think Jon was referring to the District Council allowances which were above what was recommended by IRP - you're cutting everything else why not cut your allowance within the DC to what was recommended?? I understand you receive £12,250 and the recommended figure is £10,500 some £1,750 higher. I am sure if you do respond it will be an excuse regarding cabinet size however at a time when the economy of the district is suffering and cutbacks are being made do you think you are morally doing the right thing when your constiuents suffer?
If you or other councillors defend the position you are only reinforcing the position that you are more interested in your own self interest and not about putting monies back in to the coffers of the Wyre Forest.

Stephen Brown says...
10:55pm Thu 10 Jan 13

So they REALLY want to hear the views of residents?

That will be a first.

Ahhh...but it's on what THEY propose.

They're not really interested in our views then as it will most likely be another one of those loaded gun questionnaires designed to facilitate the answers they want to hear to support an agenda we don't really agree with.

I don't support the cuts. I don't support our politicians who support the cuts. I don't support our local councils supporting the national politicians who support the cuts.

What I would like is a real debate on why services are being slashed, why facilities are being closed, why they think some essential services and facilities will be better run by volunteers, why the rich are not paying their fair share, why the poorest and most vulnerable are being the hardest hit, why are there cuts at all when there is £95billion of uncollected and evaded taxes, why is there no alternative programme getting the country back to work, why are jobs and the economic well-being of the country being sacrificied so that a few can have tax cuts and the banks escape responsibility for their actions? Why Why Why?

So the few who prop this system up can continue to have their snouts in the trough that's why.

But it's all ok becuase they want our views on what they propose - well I don't approve! There you go - you've got my views.

DOEPUBLIC says...
11:01pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Maybe you could clarify Mr Campion why the electorate are not able to choose to pay to keep the 200 people in work and keep the services they provide ? Or even 100 people?

jon cooper says...
11:01pm Thu 10 Jan 13

... Well in that case, perhaps WFDC should follow WCC's lead in reducing their own allowances in a 'volunteer' capacity with respect to cuts in public spending and with reference to the communities who will be expected to run services on a volunteer basis.

Come on Councillors; show your electorate that we're all in this together ... "In the National AND local interests" ...

stour67 says...
9:35am Fri 11 Jan 13

So that's another 200 jobs lost ,so that's about another £40k a week on the benefits bill plus,so ,yep this gov is working to drag the country into grave just like maggie did.And no it was not the last gov,it was the US banking .

CJC says...
9:46am Fri 11 Jan 13

Below is Pasted & Copied From BBC News Page.
MPs have suggested a 32% increases in their pay to the Commons expenses watchdog, it has been revealed.
Members said they deserved an £86,250 salary in an anonymous survey conducted by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).
The research also found more than a third thought they should keep final-salary pensions.
The findings emerged as Ipsa published a report on its initial consultation into pay and pensions.
The Commons voted against a 1% pay rise in 2011 and last year agreed to extend the pay freeze into 2013.
But the survey found that 69% thought they were underpaid on their current salary of £65,738.
The average level suggested for the appropriate level of pay was £86,250.
YouGov conducted online interviews with 100 MPs on Ipsa's behalf, and weighted the results slightly to represent the Commons by party, gender, year elected, and geography.
Conservative MPs were the most likely to believe they were underpaid, according to the results.
On average, Tories said their salary should be £96,740, while Lib Dems thought the right amount was £78,361 and Labour £77,322. Other parties put the figure at £75,091.
A fifth of those questioned said they should be paid £95,000 or more.
The prime minister's official spokesman said David Cameron believed it was a matter for Ipsa, when asked about the prime minister's thoughts of MPs' demands for more pay.

I wish my husband could have the choice to vote for a 32% wage increase, but no another year will go by without anything!!!!!

FranOb says...
12:50pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Yes the County could consult on putting up the Council Tax by 2% which would cost a Band D Council Tax payer a MASSIVE (!) £20 PER YEAR, would bring in an additional £4Million and would help to save some of those jobs!

Stephen Brown says...
2:20pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Thanks for that Fran.

I think the council has shed enough jobs. Services, especially those for the vulnerable are already at breaking point and extra losses may be the final straw that breaks the camels back.

It beggars belief that the council is contemplating extra spending like £160million on an incinerator with the potential for it to cause a further £6million per year financial black hole - when they slash jobs and services elsewhere. One wonders how on a such a debt level and income of around £300million a year they can fathom this is a good deal for the taxpayer or a good idea?

I would pay such extra and a bit more probably, even though like everyone else I am struggling, if it means services and jobs could be saved. I would object however if the extra revenue went on the incinerator. On both counts I would hope I am not in a minority in that view.

comberton hill questions says...
2:35pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Stephen I think you have hit the nail on the head - it is not the extra that most people would object to £20 a year extra using Fran's example to keep people in jobs seems a good deal to me.

It is the money being wasted that we need to concentrate on - you look at income and expenditure and the problem seems to be at both district and county that some things are pushed through irrespective of the rationale and feeling against them.

No one minds paying a little more when it saves jobs the problem is when they see so much being wasted or misdirected

emjaypee says...
3:32pm Fri 11 Jan 13

The tory government this week voted in favour of capping benefits to the most needy in our society. Be interesting to see which voting booth our own tory MP went through on the night in question, whilst enjoying all the perks many of his constituents can only dream of.

FranOb says...
6:25pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Interestingly there is nothing in the County budget for the incinerator, that £160M won't appear until 2014/15 or 2015/16!!!
Cutting services and jobs cannot help our local economy.
I for one would happily pay an extra £20 per year to save services and jobs!

DOEPUBLIC says...
12:51am Sat 12 Jan 13

Thanx for that FranO. So £10 for 100 jobs. £1 for 10 jobs. 10p per job.
Yet, the council refuse even 10p because they are not prepared to challenge the myopic approach of their national leadership. Even Bobbie the Builder and Postman Pat would realise that spending the occasional penny would save on manure disrupting Wendy Millers business. But then reality would need to replace the myopia of market mania.

DOEPUBLIC says...
1:35am Sun 13 Jan 13

No observations Mr Campion?
A penny for your thoughts?

walkerno5 says...
4:54pm Sun 13 Jan 13

I'd pay an extra £200 a year gladly. I'm far from the top band. I suspect that there are at least 200 other folks who would happily call for a council tax increase now as well.

Gobby Robby says...
5:16pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Me too.

Flapjackone says...
11:46pm Sun 13 Jan 13

You don’t need to increase council tax or cut jobs. WE DO NOT NEED AN INCINERATOR.
Fran O says the £160 million incinerator is not in the budget for 2014-5.No surprise there. It’s all top secret with your money.

For 3 years we have been told it is going to cost £120 million.Fran it is £168 M in the OBC Lite with a real potential of costing £1 billion.
It will cost at least an extra £6 million per annum for 25 years, in addition to all the existing costs.
There is no final business case. How can we be at this stage with no final business case councillors????
Where do we need to make cuts?? THE WASTE CONTRACT.

Flapjackone says...
11:58pm Sun 13 Jan 13

There is an overcapacity of incinerators in the West Midlands, we don’t need another one.They need our waste.
Recycling in Wyre forest is pretty much worst in the county. Who is in charge of that?
There are much cheaper ways, but your councillors have all stuck their head in the sand, ( it's not my department) It will cost the whole county including Wyre Forest.
Hardman is cutting jobs and services for the old and the young, but allowing £1.8 million of your money to prepare the ground for the incinerator, even though the council do not know how to fund it. At last they have now found that the PFI is expensive.

We need a refund from Mr Campion if he is getting an allowance for being in charge of Localism.
In Worcestershire it means the council can do what it likes irrespective of public opinion.
Build an incinerator, close a library, or cut down trees.

kidderlord says...
9:10am Mon 14 Jan 13

FORGET ALLOWANCES AND INCINERATORS- THEY HARDLY MATTER IN THIS INSTANCE. Members allowances are a necessary evil, and most councillors earn every penny- providing they serve ONE COUNCIL unlike Campion, Clee Hart, Desmond etc.But that is a different story.
No the worrying thing is this- why is there still spare capacity in staffing levels, that they can afford to cut more jobs? What is the overall costs in redundancy etc? And more importantly, with such a reduced workforce, certain jobs are not being carried out correctly- and I don@t mean trivial things like potholes, but important things like background checks on people, proceedural safety etc.These are the things that are being cut out causing potential harm to vulnerable people, children and adults, who rely on a safe and secure service.

kidderlord says...
9:11am Mon 14 Jan 13

Risk assessments was what i was looking for- these are not being carried out in some depts. due to lack of staff. AND THIS IS FACT FROM A STAFF MEMBER

DOEPUBLIC says...
11:11pm Mon 14 Jan 13

The risk assessment being made is that the community will be convinced by the rhetoric of the leading group. No issue with allowances, if allowance are also made for other lines of thinking.
Not everything that fits in a box is a box. 1% on a spreadsheet could be 100% a person's life.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree