Dec 312010
 

By Cllr Martin Ford, Aberdeenshire Council

Decisions by the Westminster and Scottish governments have left Aberdeenshire Council facing its worst budget cuts ever.

For 2011/12, Aberdeenshire Council has no choice but to make cuts in its budget totalling in excess of £30 million. The Council’s funding from the Scottish Government has been reduced and it has had to agree to freeze the Council Tax. In real terms, allowing for inflation, the Council’s Government grant has been cut by more than five per cent

In fact, Aberdeenshire Council’s position is worse than previously thought.

Unexpectedly, just before Christmas, the Scottish Government advised Aberdeenshire Council that the grant figure it had announced for the Council was wrong. Instead of a grant of £426.988 million for 2011/12, Aberdeenshire would be getting more than half a million pounds less, £426.477 million. The Council will have to cut a further £511,000 from its revenue budget for 2011/12 as a result of the Scottish Government’s revision of its grant funding figures.

There is nothing Aberdeenshire Council can do about the level of funding the Scottish Government decides it is to get, and nothing the Council can do about what will come from its other main source of income, the Council Tax (see: Council Tax freeze and many cuts decided, Aberdeen Voice, 26 November 2010).

The task for Aberdeenshire Council is to minimise the impact of the loss of income it now faces on the public services the Council
provides.

The bulk of the saving required in the 2011/12 revenue budget was decided at the full council meeting on 25 November when cuts and efficiencies totalling almost £27 million were voted through by the Council’s Liberal Democrat/Conservative administration.

I am sure many people do not yet realise how the cuts that have been decided will affect them. Standing in the middle of Newmachar the other day, by the village hall, the breadth of the impact of the cuts really came home to me.

I am appalled at what is being done to really important services – and angry because at least the worst of the cuts could so easily have been avoided

Behind me, in the hall car park, were the recycling skips. A cut of £350,000 in spending on information about and promotion of recycling was one of the administration’s budget cuts voted through on 25 November. Optimistically, the administration’s budget for 2012/13 also includes a £500,000 ‘efficiency saving’ achieved through a reduction in the amount of recyclable material going to landfill.

It seems unlikely, to say the least, that cutting virtually the entire budget dedicated to informing people about the importance of recycling will lead the following year to such a dramatic improvement in the recycling rate.

Newmachar village hall is in School Road, a lit street with, by the village hall, a pavement on one side. In the 2011/12 budget, spending on footway maintenance has been cut by £200,000 and the amount allocated to installing dropped kerbs reduced by 50 per cent. Over £100,000 has been docked from spending on testing and maintaining street lights.

Next to the village hall is New Machar School. Provision of classroom assistants in primary schools is to be significantly reduced over the next two years. Spending on classroom assistants is to be cut by 50 per cent (£1.3 million) during 2011 to 2013 and by a further £0.53 million in later years. Spending on primary visiting specialists will be reduced by £200,000 in 2011/12. School devolved budgets are to be cut.

On the opposite side of the road from the village hall is a grass verge on which is sited a dog-waste bin. The administration’s cuts voted through on 25 November include reducing the funding for dog wardens by a third in 2012/13. In 2011/12, £200,000 is to be saved by reducing grass-verge cutting. The budget for village orderlies – a much appreciated service that certainly helped keep towns and villages tidy through the summer – has been cut completely from next year.

Behind the verge opposite the village hall is the cemetery. Spending on grounds maintenance in burial grounds is to be reduced by £130,000 in 2011/12.

Beyond the cemetery is the play park. Spending on maintenance in parks and open spaces is also to be reduced by £130,000 in 2011/12.

Next to the play park is the library. A saving of £80,000 is to be made in 2011/12 by reducing the opening hours of some Aberdeenshire libraries.

Then there are the cuts that don’t show – unless you are a person who depends on the service that is being cut.

I am appalled at what is being done to really important services – and angry because at least the worst of the cuts could so easily have been avoided, had the Scottish Government allowed councils the freedom to decide on their own Council Tax. A two per cent increase in the Council Tax in Aberdeenshire, that is 44 pence per week for a Band D property, would bring in £2.4 million that could be spent on schools or social work. For the cost of a cheap bar of chocolate, cuts to classroom assistants or social care for children could have been avoided.

The Council still has to find around a further £4 million of savings to balance its budget for 2011/12. I hope the administration will work constructively with opposition councillors through the rest of the budget process to minimise the impact of these further cuts on the most crucial Council services.

Nov 262010
 

By Councillor Martin Ford.

Yesterday (25th November), Aberdeenshire Council took important decisions about its budget for the financial year 2011/12.

It was one of the worst days I have had as an Aberdeenshire councillor.

First, the Council had to decide whether it would accept Finance Secretary John Swinney’s ‘offer’ of a funding cut of 2.6 per cent (£10.243 million) in return for the Council agreeing to a package of measures including no increase in the Council Tax.

On this the Council was unanimous – because the alternative was so much worse. If the Council refused to comply with the conditions set by Mr Swinney for a 2.6 per cent cut in funding, funding would be cut instead by 6.4 per cent, or £27.093 million.
Faced with losing an additional £16.850 million in grant, the Council effectively had no choice but to agree to meet the requirements for the smaller cut in funding.

Agreeing to freeze the Council Tax is not the same as agreeing with freezing the Council Tax – as several councillors made clear. Enforcing a Council Tax freeze on councils is wrong in principle. The decision as to what balance to strike between raising additional revenue and cutting council services is properly one for councils and not the Scottish Government.

Had Mr Swinney allowed councils to decide on the level of Council Tax next year, some of the cuts to services could have been avoided. In the case of Aberdeenshire, the Band D Council Tax is £1141. A one per cent increase, £11.41 per year or 22 pence per week, would bring in around £1.2 million to help pay for public services.

There is, though, to be no increase in the Council Tax – just a cut in government grant. Although the cut will be 2.6 per cent in cash terms, in real terms, allowing for inflation and cost pressures, the cut is 7.9 per cent. Having made the decision to comply with the conditions set for a 2.6 per cent cut in funding, the second debate at yesterday’s Council meeting was on the cuts that would be required to achieve a balanced budget.

This was a grim experience indeed.

it appears that Aberdeenshire Council has already decided on most of the cuts it will make in next year’s budget

Councillors were provided with a huge list of potential cuts and efficiencies that together were projected to save almost £27 million. The cuts identified ranged from fewer teachers and classroom assistants to reduced opening hours for swimming pools, fewer social work staff, ending grants to voluntary organisations and reducing grounds maintenance.

Councillors were warned that to make these cuts from the start of the 2011/12 financial year, work had to start immediately. Making staff redundant is not something that can be rushed.

While it was certainly necessary to authorise the Council’s management to continue preparation work so the cuts identified could be implemented if agreed when the Council sets its 2011/12 budget on 10 February, the Council’s Liberal Democrat/Conservative administration went further. Summing up the debate on the cuts options, the Council leader, Cllr Anne Robertson, made clear that agreement to proceed with work on the cuts listed was a decision to make them.

The cuts were approved by a large majority.

On this basis, it appears that Aberdeenshire Council has already decided on most of the cuts it will make in next year’s budget. Depending on the exact grant settlement the Council receives from the Scottish Government, some additional savings will need to be found before budget day in February.

We will find out exactly what the Council will get in grant funding in two weeks time.

Nov 122010
 

Members of Friends of UTG were shocked this week when they attended what they thought was a fairly low-profile council meeting to discuss ‘land use’ in the city.

Mike Shepherd told the Voice;

‘A friendly councillor told us about the Land Use forum being held in Aberdeen town house on Tuesday night. We went along with the vague idea that there might be some discussions relevant to the Union Terrace Gardens campaign. To our surprise it was a meeting to discuss council cuts over the next five years.

Present were various members of the council executive representing enterprise, planning and infrastructure (but not social services).

Options for budget cuts have already been published elsewhere. Nevertheless, it was still a shock to hear about them from council officials themselves in what proved to be a very gloomy meeting.

The intention is to cut the council budget by 10% over years 1 and 2, and then by another 10% over the period years 3 to 5, totalling £127 Million.  Here are some of the things that were said at the meeting.

–         There is no legal obligation for the council to fund parks, open spaces, street lighting or public toilets.

–         There is an option to close all 9 public toilets in Aberdeen. One possibility being considered is to pay commercial properties to allow the public to use their toilets.

–         The level of street cleaning may be reduced.

–         An option is that once a council cemetery becomes full, not to maintain them and turn them into a wild life area.

–         Reduce school crossing patrols, perhaps using them in the morning only and not at dinner time or the afternoon.

–         Reduce expenditure on bus shelters.

–         Car parking charges to increase every second year.

The council are looking for consultation on the cuts. In an angry exchange, it was mentioned that it was difficult to take the council seriously on this after the City Square debacle. The council executive assured everybody that they were serious about listening to the public.

Some suggestions were made in the discussion that followed. The council fund ACSEF by £230,000 a year, a figure confirmed at the meeting, and they could easily afford to fund themselves. It appears that there is a three-way agreement between Aberdeen council, Aberdeenshire council and Scottish Enterprise to fund ACSEF and the next review of this agreement is over a year away. Nevertheless, cutting funding to ACSEF is an option that has been considered.

Another idea was to put a moratorium on further council borrowing, particularly as a large part of the revenue budget services the debt. We were told that this wasn’t a practical idea as certain departments required unavoidable investment.

One ACSEF supporter at the meeting replied to this that the city needed better infrastructure like approach roads, only to get the caustic reply that what was the point of better access to a city where there were no parks, no public toilets and the cemeteries were wild life areas.

Although no decisions have been made re. cuts, there is no doubt that the standard of public service in Aberdeen is going to decrease substantially over the next five years. Given the irony of an almost bankrupt council in a rich oil town, JK Galbraiths dictum of private affluence and  public squalor side by side will become painfully obvious before long. ‘

Oct 082010
 

The future of Union Terrace Gardens came under intense scrutiny again on Wednesday 6th when a full meeting of the council was asked to vote on a new timetable for they key steps in the project. Although the proposed agenda was described as ‘only indicative’, its adoption would mean that the council were giving the go-ahead to this extremely complex initiative.

The group Friends of Union Terrace Gardens, who are campaigning for a more considered approach towards any development of the site, were allowed to make a submission to the council before the matter was put up for debate. Chairman of the group, Mike Shepherd reports;

I was allowed to give a deputation, which involved giving a ten minute talk to the council. I noted that the City Garden project has already suffered some significant delays. For instance, the item to consult the public on short-listed designs for the square has been delayed by four and a half months and will now start on the 24th August 2011.

One of the results of this is that several key decisions have been placed into the council meeting next April. These include approval of the final funding business case; a statement on the ownership of the gardens; approval of the SPV’s project business plan, approval to lease council land to the SPV and permission for the SPV to take the project forward.  I urged that there is a need for caution on what is a complex financial and legal issue. I argued that to make several key decisions in one day’s council business is far too fast for the council to properly assess the situation and makes it likely that some big mistakes will be made.

The term SPV mentioned above is an acronym for Special Purpose Vehicle. An SPV is a legal entity which is a limited company or a partnership created for a specific purpose separate from the sponsoring organisation (in this case the council). The SPV could be similar to the Aberdeen City Development Company, an organisation currently being formed by the council to act as a joint venture between private enterprise and the council for the purpose of semi-privatising council assets deemed to be ‘market failures’.

A comment was made that having ignored the initial consultation where the public said no to the scheme, we would now be forced to pick the least-worst design

It has been proposed to set up the City Development Company with 12 board members of which only up to four will be from the council. The remaining board members are likely to come from private enterprise and possibly from Scottish Enterprise, a national government organisation.

The SPV would be charged with taking the city square through to completion.

This organisation is not supposed to exist until January 2012, when the council have noted a budget of £900,000 for staffing costs. However, we read in the calendar that the council are now being asked to approve granting the lease for the gardens to the SPV on April 27th 2011, at least a year before a planning submission is likely to be made. We have been told by the Council Executive that the lease would probably be assigned for 125 years. Although the council would nominally own the park, control would pass over to the SPV.

I said the following to the council during my deputation:

“If the lease is assigned early, then what happens if planning permission is not given? Does this mean that the council will have given up control of the park to a third party with no clear idea as to what happens next? How will the council get the lease back; can it get the lease back? What will be the status of UTG as a council-operated park if the lease is assigned 3 years before any construction is anticipated? Will the public be allowed to use the park after April next year?”

I didn’t get any answers to these questions. Surprisingly, the issue of a lease barely come up in the council debate that followed. However, one further controversy arose. Councillor John Stewart, the council leader and supporter of the City Garden Project, was asked if the option to keep the gardens substantially as they are would be one of those given to the public when they were being allowed to comment on the designs for the city square. No was the answer.  A comment was made that having ignored the initial consultation where the public said no to the scheme, we would now be forced to pick the least-worst design.

Councillor John Stewart wrapped up the meeting by supporting what he described as an exciting, new vision for the city centre. He urged the council to approve the calendar going forward as a way to explore a possible future for Aberdeen and to fully assess the risks for the project. The vote went in his favour 21 to 13.

The fate of Union Terrace Gardens will come up again at the full council meeting on the 27th April 2011, a date when control of the gardens could be given away early. By this time, it is likely that that city-centre park will be a major issue in the Scottish parliamentary elections which are to take place eight days later on Thursday 5th May 2011. I have a feeling that the controversy over Union Terrace Gardens will have reached boiling point by then.

Jul 232010
 

By Mike Shepherd.

The Facebook site ‘Run-down Aberdeen’ was started out of a concern that Aberdeen Council appears to be more interested in multi-million pound big-ticket projects such as the City Square, rather than dealing with their day-to-day responsibilities of managing the city. Large parts of Aberdeen are starting to look run-down and neglected as a result.

Continue reading »

Jul 162010
 

By John Sangster.

A new government with new thinking, a new way of looking at things? This is what we were told when an agreement was made between Tweedle Cameron and Tweedle Clegg. We were told that the first thing we must do is save money, make cuts, every single penny we save is good for the country. So taking my role as a model citizen very seriously  I have come up with an alternative budget.

Continue reading »

Jul 162010
 

By Ms J. Florence.

The tower blocks at Hazlehead

An Aberdeen pensioner reports what she considers a massive failure in the provision of services for the elderly and ill.
Greta Young, 72, lives in the Hazlehead area of the city.  Over the past year she has suffered three falls, each of which has caused fractured bones.  After her first fall she was diagnosed with osteoporosis.  Unfortunately, she fell again on Friday 4 March 2010 dislocating her elbow – and within twelve hours fell again – in the early hours of Saturday morning having risen to go to the bathroom. Continue reading »