jimbow
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This Report is all about SPIN. For Cllr Hugh Jones, the presenter of this Report, Ty Pawb has always been his baby, often referring to it as the Jewel in the Crown.
In the presentation, reference is made to the annual loss for 2021/22 being £111k, when in fact he fails to report that in reality Ty Pawb ended up being subsidised by £245k.
The budget is essentially what the Council decide is acceptable at the beginning of the year, and they expect officers to deliver this.
The actual results show two deficits. The first is the deficit compared to the budget and the second is the absolute deficit.
What they are saying is that the Councillors were quite happy to subsidise Ty Pawb by £133k, but the actual result was £111k worse than that.
In reality, Ty Pawb ended up being subsidised by £245k.
Cllr Jones referred to a comparison of the Peoples Market/Oriel Gallery in 2016 showing they together cost the Council £266k and that Ty Pawb had improved on that performance by only losing (SPIN) figures of £112k (in reality £245K). He failed to present the facts that in 2016 the Peoples Market stood on its own feet.Ty Pawb were gifted income of around £150k from car parks and £50k from arcade shops rent. Had these gifts been given to the Peoples Market/Oriel Gallery a subsidy of around £50k would have been required not £266k. A far cry from the £245 subsidy required for Ty Pawb for year 2021/22. It suits the Councillor’s agenda to spin this information but is this really being transparent.
I don’t doubt that the pandemic had an impact on the markets. However, I do question the amount of the losses. The Council quote a loss of £112k, yet this has been governed by an opinion of somebody who budgeted in the factor of a loss of £133k. The actual loss in my opinion should be shown as £247k
Imagine making a profit but then telling the taxman that due to budgeting for a loss I can’t pay any tax. Which figure would the taxman make an assessment on?
Well that’s it, onwards and upwards.
Not being a financial accountant, I find it hard to come to terms with some figures and explanations.
Page 5 4.8— Actual Total Expenditure 2021/22 £938k. Income £693k. This to me is a net loss of £245k of income over expenditure, yet factored in is a Budget of £133k, therefore reducing the In Year Deficit to £111k. To me the In Year Deficit should be £245k
Page 59– A breakdown of those figures:- Shows Arts & Exhibitions, Learning and Engagement, Events, Venue Hire, Car Park showing a surplus of income over expenditure to the tune of £132k. The Markets, Food Hall, Shops, Studios however are showing a loss of income over expenditure of £377k.
The nett loss between the two comes out at £245k, but given that the Report quotes the market food area at an occupancy level of nearly 100% yet are showing a deficit of £377k of income over expenditure defies logic.
It comes across to me all the high costs of staffing, repairs etc are lumped onto the markets area. This does not give a true picture of what is going on.
katy;- That makes interesting reading. Considering the agenda item,Ty Pawb Performance 2021/22 has been scheduled on the forward Work Programme for this Scrutiny Committee for some time. It appears rather odd that the Report at this moment in time has been held back. In the past, we have seen the Ty Pawb Fourth Street Business Plan ripped up by the Council and replaced by their own plan. Could it be that this plan now also is not meeting its targets and the figures are having to be revised to fit the picture.
It is refreshing to see three new faces on the Executive Board, let us hope that they will bring a fresh approach. This obviously had to happen due to 1 resignation and 2 Councillors losing their wards.
As for the remaining seven, three have moved portfolios. If they were doing a reasonable job and with their experience over the past five years, why move them? The message this sends to me is that the Leader was unhappy with their performances. Instead of giving them the push, he moves them to other portfolios with the hope that their performances improve.
This to me stinks of jobs for the boys, plus in keeping of the closed shop attitude of the Executive Board.
It comes across to me that if you show some opposition to the Independents as a member of say Lib Dem, then jump ship to become an Independent. Your chances of attaining Executive Board status increases alarmingly. As has been alluded to, qualifications seem irrelevant.
BenjaminM:-I wouldn’t disagree with your comment “some old tired lacklustre men on the Executive”
As for the gender makeup. The Independent/Conservative Group have only 4 female councillors from who to choose from. 2 are newly elected and have no chance, whilst one probably will become a “Chair”. The opposition between them have 10 female councillors and whilst I say opposition, this carries no weight in Wrexham Council due to the bickering that goes on.
