Sheffield City Councill must save £60 million.

[No User Name 10]

9.1million a year on 84 councillors Sheffield basic rate

 

3 million a year for special responsibility allowance 47 councillors

 

12.1 million

ex travel

 

Ha behave, 84 people earning 9.1m equates to something like 108k each, do you seriously believe the likes of J*** S**** are earning £108k a year out of SCC?

 

Go and check your facts again. That's more than MP's get!

[Anna B 1,417]

You expect the Council to conduct a thorough and fair enquiry into their own failings??

 

Well Councillor Scrivens did promise an enquiry in his Liberal Democrat manifesto when he was standing for election. Then changed his mind when he was elected. So more fool those who believe politicians will keep their promises...

 

Mind you, it doesn't seem to have done him any harm - he's now Lord Scrivens. They seem to think people who can lie to the general public convincingly might be an assett...

[Narden Dee 10]

they could save a fortune by stopping some of the central housing meetings with free taxis and buffets held several times a year,plus lots of staff to run it,plus a several thousand pound jolly ever year with buffet and taxis all for about 60 people,plus lots of staff to run that and its always the same invited people,many would call it a closed shop,plus all the jolly partys in the town hall,and then collect the rates that are owed,

think that would cover it.

 

Although I agree with you that these are a waste of money that money is paid out of the HRA account that is ring fenced so no savings would technically be made as it would go back into the pot to be spent on housing, it cannot be used to keep a library open etc.

 

Also the rates are not wrote off compared to other authorities (eg Leeds) so they can be reclaimed if someone moves back to Sheffield chasing people would be a waste of money as they cannot be enforced if they are out of the country etc

[Detetcive 10]

60 million is a drop in the ocean of the Councils budget.

 

They make a song a dance out of it because then they can 'justify' slashing a front line service that's been a bit difficult to manage.

 

Meanwhile they still have an army of middle and senior managers doing absolutely nothing of any value to anyone.

 

They have lost around 50% of their budgets in the last 4 years or so. Hardly a drop in the ocean.

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2014 at 21:55 ----------

 

9.1million a year on 84 councillors Sheffield basic rate

 

3 million a year for special responsibility allowance 47 councillors

 

12.1 million

ex travel

 

What on earth are you on about. You're just making this up aren't you? Where do you get this guff from?

[onlineo 10]

I think the poster just got his sums wrong by a factor of close to 10. 84 councillors * £11,742 basic allowance# adds up to £986,328. A sizeable amount but trimming the number to 60 would still cost £704,520 and may or may not have negative results for people in the community. I think the idea is a solid one that could be trialled in a few wards to see if reducing councillors makes a difference to us. BUT this would have to be a long term plan and the savings are fairly modest in terms of basic allowance and probably equally as modest in terms of travel allowances etc.

 

# (http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/should-sheffield-councillors-be-cut-to-save-cash-1-6912357)

[the_bloke 17]

The total budget for last year was 1,429 million. So its a reduction of around 4%.

 

Surely the simplest way is to improve revenue collection. Have you noticed how long it takes people to get through to make arrangements for council tax and sort it out rather than pay money and wait till it goes to court.

 

In 2009 the budget was £1,448 million

 

If people actually bothered to read the (extensive) statements of accounts there are vast swathes of money tied up in historical schemes and debts that the council is obliged to pay and they have very little room to manoeuvre. All they can do is cut the things they have day to day control over, such as front line services, staff and wastage. Too many terrible financial schemes and poor decisions made by staff and councillors who are long gone have come back viciously to haunt them.

[Jonny5 10]

They have lost around 50% of their budgets in the last 4 years or so. Hardly a drop in the ocean.

4-5% per year for 4 years isn't 50%?

 

Out of interest where did you get that 50% from?

[Detetcive 10]

4-5% per year for 4 years isn't 50%?

 

Out of interest where did you get that 50% from?

 

oo er ,I may have been comparing wrong figures.

 

But net revenue budget around 480m - cuts in last 4 years 238m. another 60m this year

 

The government contribution to the net revenue budget has been reduced by 50% in 4 years (source SCC presentation on website) - so that is where the 50% figure got into my head.

 

My point was that it is more than just one year's cut they are dealing with and there is little or no room for more reduction without cutting right into the basic services.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Detetcive

[Cyclone 10]

It's going to be in the region of 20 to 25 percent over the last half a decade. It's not a trivial amount.

 

4.5% might sound (to some posters) like an easy saving to find, but presumably all the easy savings were made in the first few years of cuts.

[the fonz 10]

Discretionary services will be cut, more libraries and sports centres going, less cleaning and grass cutting, etc.

[roosterboost 10]

Discretionary services will be cut, more libraries and sports centres going, less cleaning and grass cutting, etc.

 

They could always increase local taxation to pay for the local services. Perhaps suggest it to your local councillor it could be a real vote winner.

[the fonz 10]

They could always increase local taxation to pay for the local services. Perhaps suggest it to your local councillor it could be a real vote winner.

 

They should. The problem is that all politicians in this country are bothered about is staying in power.