jimbow

Forum Replies Created

  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Ty Pawb – success #148513

    jimbow
    Participant

    [quote. I walked to the end of the entrance ‘corridor’ until I could look past what appeared to be some sort of caravan made out of corrugated steel (is this art? or?), <ahref=”https://www.typawb.wales/” rel=”nofollow”>https://www.typawb.wales/[/quote]

    Could it be they are waiting for a fortune teller to take up residence.

    in reply to: Ty Pawb – success #148493

    jimbow
    Participant

    I’m a bit confused here Jimbow. You state that the old Peoples Market had 58 stalls which could, if let, produce a potential revenue return of £145k at 100% occupancy. ADDITIONALLY, there were the Arcade shops which, if fully let, would bring in revenue of £78k and that the two together could previously bring in at 100% occupancy £223k. Add the Car Park and the Revenue and there is a quite mouth-watering potential in the previous. It does seem odd that WCBC has placed its bets on such a risky punt and even on their own figures, would I be right in assuming that the old Market was generating more as it was run down?

    Alunh–I have just found some figures given out by the Council for the Peoples Market in December 2015, I presume these are for the year 2014/15.

    Income from Rents in the Peoples Market are quoted as £63,377, Arcade Shops are quoted as £57,862. This is a total of £121k. They are only achieving £145k from Ty Pawb

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by  jimbow.
    in reply to: Ty Pawb – success #148480

    jimbow
    Participant

    Alunh- Yes you are right in thinking that the Arcade Shops and Peoples Market rent could potentially if it was 100% occupancy,realise around £223k.

    The Peoples Market in its later years was probably running at an occupancy level around 60%. However, I always had the feeling that rents were being reduced to hopefully fill the space. In the latter years rents were reduced to a ridiculously low level that some tenants on full time agreements only paid a Service Charge. Maybe the Council ran it down knowing they had a better plan for the future.

    When you think back that a Service Charge covering all the costs incurred in running the markets was paid by tenants on top of the rent. The Rent money was all for the Councils back pocket, with no re investment over the years.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by  jimbow.
    in reply to: Ty Pawb – success #148473

    jimbow
    Participant

    The response states that two people have been appointed to the Advisory Board – if this is the case I’m very surprised that the Wrexham Jungle Drums (and Wrexham.com) have not as yet put names into the public arena. Have they had to sign the “Official Secrets Act” not to divulge their identity?

    Does anyone know how many units actually exist including the South Arcade? Regarding the Alunh comment about rental income being low- it has been stated on the thread about the reduced rents and phased payments to try and get full occupancy. The FOI response looks accurate to the question but is also very selective in terms of explanation.

    There are 13 units in the North and South Arcades.

    The original Rent Roll for Ty Pawb in the Fourth Street Report was £194k, this included £32k for Bar/Café that never materialised. This would bring the total to £162k.

    There were three Scenarios: Optimistic 93%, Base 87% and Pessimistic 79% now using these figures on the reduced Rent Roll of £162k brings Optimistic Revenue to be £150k, Base £141k and Pessimistic £128k.

    The Council quoted £141k as being the Forecast Rental Income which is the Base Scenario.

    Given this the rental from the Studios are included in the Council figures. £162k revenue at 100% occupation and £141k after allowing for rent rebates, under occupancy etc.

    in reply to: Ty Pawb – success #148465

    jimbow
    Participant

    Carol, Alunh–

    The Peoples Market had 58 stalls and a lettable floor space of 1272m2 at £114 m2 gives potential revenue return of £145k at 100% occupancy.

    Ty Pawb has 20 stalls and a lettable floor space of 560m2 at £120 m2 gives potential revenue return of £67k. At 100% occupancy.

    The Arcade shops if all let would bring in revenue of £78k.

    The two together bring in at 100% occupancy £145k. This is where the figure the Council quote of Forecast Rental Income of £141k. There are the upstairs studios that could bring in another £16k but it does not look as if this has been included in the £141k.

    in reply to: Ty Pawb – success #148293

    jimbow
    Participant

    Peterthewatcher—The 3 Wrexham Indoor Markets were all run under the same agreement for rates payable. The system for the Butchers Market being the rates for that building were in 2011/12 £14,315, this was divided between all the stallholders on a ratio of occupied stall floor space over total lettable market floor space. This was then recharged through the Service Charge.

    For the year 2012/13 and previous years, WCBC used a firm from either Cardiff or Swansea called Cooke and Arkwright to look after rates on behalf of the Council. Payment for said services was a % of the savings made.

    They came up with the idea of charging for rates by each individual stall, this enabled the stalls to be zero rated and therefore from 2013/14 up to the present 2018/19 the Butchers Market tenants have only paid around £800 per year rates between all stalls.

    The Butchers and General Market to the best of my knowledge are still on these same contracts. However, Ty Pawb as you say, tenants will have to look at their tenancy agreements.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by  jimbow.
    in reply to: Ty Pawb – success #148276

    jimbow
    Participant

    In the Fourth Street Report on Ty Pawb the Rent Roll for Market/Retail space, Studios and Cafe/Bar was costed as £194k.

    The Cafe/Bar part fell through and therefore £32k should be taken out from the £194k leaving £162k. Leaving a shortfall of £29k on the Optimistic Report.

    The car park revenue was put in at £159k but the charge then was £4 per day. The Council have since this report changed the charge to less than £4.Income from car parks will reduce and net income will come in at around £41k. This is £16k less than in the Report.

    All in all a £45 shortfall on the Optimistic Case.

    The Optimistic Case made for a deficit of £188k. With the above the 1st year deficit could rise to £233k

    On top of this in year 2 the rents are set to increase by 15%. There is a struggle to let units now without proposed rent increase next year.

    in reply to: The Mosquitoes are Back! #148004

    jimbow
    Participant

    Chrischevy don’t forget the malaria tablets.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  jimbow.
    in reply to: Ty Pawb – success #147933

    jimbow
    Participant

    You can accept some “teething” problems when it comes to the building but not to have a basic management team in place to manage a £4.4 million project is just utter madness and gross incompetence at officer and Council Member levels for a project with at least a three year lead in.
    All of these teething problems are increasing the running costs and also lost revenue from units that are not complete or even finished off yet.
    The project budget for the project was based on full occupancy of all the types of units from day one- failure to act this is just increasing the deficit budget- collectively at the rate of a few £1000 a week.

    I was also told today that there is an issue with the food providers about who can supply coffee and drinks and who cant- I assume if this is the case the Council has included the type of restrictive covenants in the leases to reduce the level of competition between businesses. If this is the case then we are likely to see some cutthroat business activity as the food retailers compete.

    It is the same old story, if you want things to go wrong get the Council involved.

    As for restrictive covenants, in the old Council tenancy agreements you had to list the type of goods that you were going to sell, and that wording went onto the agreement. Whilst it did not give you the sole rights to the monopoly of said goods, the Council were aware that variety of stalls selling different lines was beneficial to the attraction of footfall.

    Food stalls do seem to attract more business and generate more income than non food stalls. However, this is not a problem when food outlets are all very busy. The problems arise when footfall drops and business sales drop likewise. Stallholders look around for other lines to supplement there income. This could happen at Ty Pawb if footfall drops. If it is happening as early as this, the future does not look bright.

    in reply to: Ty Pawb – success #147884

    jimbow
    Participant

    I wonder if the Council has worked out yet what the cost is per day/hour to have the building open- heat, lighting, security, cleaning, duty manager etc.

    I presume the Council have done this as how else can they come up with a Service Charge.

    On previous Council Market contracts it was written that the amount the Council incurred in running the Market from 1st January to 31st December for each calendar year, was recharged to stallholders from 1st April to 31st March in the following financial year.
    Obviously Ty Pawb has only been open since 1st April therefore tenants are being charged a Service Charge that has not been verified, if the contracts are written up in the same way.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  jimbow.
Content is user generated and is not moderated before posting. All content is viewed and used by you at your own risk and Wrexham.com does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information displayed. The views expressed on these Forums and social media are those of the individual contributors.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .