October 27, 2013 at 9:25 am #65151
Some of the rest must be on salaries, national insurance and pension contributions.October 27, 2013 at 12:30 pm #65167
@wxm 9976 wrote:
Some questions on the budget book section for “Environment”:
1. Why does the budget summary say £26,522,021 when the expenditure says £49,693,236?
2. Does -£320,154 for Cemeteries and Crematoria mean that more money comes in than is spent on this?
3. Does -£466,729 for Transport Co-ordination and School Transport mean that more money comes in than is spent on this?
4. Does -£358,193 for Car Parks and Decriminalised Parking mean that more money comes in than is spent on this?
5. Why is Departmental Support Nil?
6. Support Services expenditure was Nil last year, and is £3,768,972 this year, why?
7. Capital Financing expenditure was £318k last year, and is £3,921,186 this year, why?
Let us hope that WCBC come on here with some answersOctober 27, 2013 at 1:39 pm #65168
The -£358,193 for Car Parks and Decriminalised Parking,if the explanation is,more money that comes in than is spent,I cannot understand the figures.
The Council have 1184 parking spaces in the town centre.At an estimate of an average take per day of £2-50 per space, would give a daily income of around £2,960 per day, times 7 days = £20,720 per week, times 52 weeks =£1,077,440 per annum.Using the Council figures of an occupancy level of 85% it would give a return of around £900,000 per annum.This is without any income from fines ,which was the greater part of the £120,000 shortfall on the budget for 2013/14.Can WCBC please explain?October 28, 2013 at 9:02 pm #65185
The recent Council committee meeting referred to:
It is interesting if not amazing that this survey covers a very limited breadth on the subject of income and expenditure. The structure of the budget, and the extent of the accounts reported … is not captured in this survey. It is interesting to note what the community championed, and as such an enormous change of spending priority is needed … how will this be debated week in and week out in the public domain?
If this survey is reported in the recent “D Day” Council meeting as being “useful” … how are we as a community reacting to it?November 16, 2013 at 8:10 am #65186
If Wrexham is to resolve its financial future, it must think and act differently. Debates about levels of spend in the thousands will not resolve the challenge or raising and spending tens of millions of pounds differently.
We get sensible debate in these forums, but where is it happening were decisions are being made about the community’s future …November 17, 2013 at 11:43 am #65187
@jimbow 9979 wrote:
Let us hope that WCBC come on here with some answers
This would make a very good article for wrexham.com?November 17, 2013 at 4:39 pm #65169
There are enough ghost writers in the Council with enough time on their hands to make an interesting thread.November 30, 2013 at 8:37 am #65188
It is interesting to note Plas Madoc is up for debate once again. Until the Council come out with a transparent and complete revenue and spend proposal, the community will remain disenfranchised.
One day, people will have had enough. How this debate continues to be able to be passed from committee to committee, is a breakdown of the democratic process.December 15, 2013 at 7:24 am #65189
If a WCBC can post a response to a tenancy issue on these forums within the hour, it would be good to get answers on the content of the posts in this thread.January 23, 2014 at 8:03 am #65190
Saw some twitter feed from WCBC debating its spending. Good to see a realisation that its finances need some real time attention. But as well as adddressing its “overspend” it needs to address what it intends to spend in the first instance, and how different services should have priority for that money.
While it highlighted at £431k overspend, can we now see a debate on how to reduce overall spending. These threads have some good examples of money that need not be spent, such as unnecessary buildings and too much resource in certain areas. Time to debate these in public.
Good to see income generation under discussion, a very difficult subject when one proposal is to use a public service housing repair body to in effect go out and compete with private builders and suppliers – not a good economic model (and maybe not so legal? subsidised entry costs into market). But good to see a healthy debate opening up.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.