Taxpayers will not have to fill waste contract budget hole, Cheltenham Borough Council bosses say
TAXPAYERS will not foot the bill after a deal with the University of Gloucestershire was stopped.
A contract between the university and waste firm Printwaste to collect its rubbish had been subcontracted out to Cheltenham Borough Council.
The authority had used its own waste operator, Ubico, to carry out the work.
But when the contract was not renewed between the university and Printwaste, there had been worries about how the £50,000 loss in income for the council every year would be now filled.
Sunday and Monday evenings £12.00 per head for an all inclusive meal with Indian and Thai cuisine (normal price £14.50).
Bring this voucher to the restaurant complete with your name and email address on it.
Terms: Expires 31st July
Contact: 01452 223782
Valid until: Wednesday, July 31 2013
Initially it had been thought by some councillors that the borough's residents would bear the brunt of the loss.
But the council's finance officers said they had now been able to find savings elsewhere in the budget.
Councillor John Rawson (LD, St Peter's), cabinet member for finance, said the loss in income had been factored into the equation when the authority set its budget last Friday.
He said the authority was continually looking at ways it could save money.
And he said, as a result, officers had been able to bridge the gap in funds.
He added: "We wanted to set a realistic budget and, therefore, we reduced our incomes figures in the coming year's budget to take account of the loss of the university trade waste contract. However, we never stop looking for cost savings.
"I am glad to say that other savings amounting to £62,000 have now been identified in the trade waste budget. This means that overall there will be no loss to the taxpayer."
Questions had been asked by members about what the loss of contract would mean for the council's financial projections at the meeting last week.
Councillor Andrew Chard (C, Leckhampton) asked about the initial budget hole when the council set its plans for 2013/14.
And he asked for clarification on the numbers but was not told the hole had been filled with cash from elsewhere on the day.
After hearing the news, Mr Chard it was important to ensure that residents were never left picking up the bills.
He added: "I am delighted to hear that the taxpayer will not be paying for this. I welcome this. We must strive to always protect taxpayers against loss of business that is not the fault of the tax payer."
5 Comments
by Coingrass
Saturday, February 16 2013, 1:04AM
“What a silly way to describe this situation! Councils have many revenue streams and they naturally vary over time. To say that 'taxpayers will not foot the bill' if a revenue stream drops slightly is as silly as announcing that taxpayers have made a profit when a revenue stream rises.
And as for the council claiming credit for taxpayers not having to foot this non-existent bill, well, who do they think they are kidding!”
by Bonkim2003
Friday, February 15 2013, 7:38PM
“Council speaks with forked tongue! or in Double Dutch - if the council is losing the income, but finding savings elsewhere, Cheltenham taxpayers are still short, and paying for the deficit arising from the loss of income - they would have used the savings identified towards other services or to reduce council tax.
Why not give it straight instead of hiding behind meaningless words or may be you think you are too clever and Cheltenham people simple.”
by Walker100
Friday, February 15 2013, 9:36AM
“The fact is those £62k of savings should have been identified previously, not as a result of the CBC having it's hand forced because a contract was lost. And why was CBC sub-contracting? Surely Printwaste was making a profit despite getting someone else to do the work? So why didn't CBC tender for the contract at a higher rate than Printwaste was paying them?”
by elgoog
Friday, February 15 2013, 9:20AM
“After hearing the news, Mr Chard it was important to ensure that residents were never left picking up the bills.
He added: "I am delighted to hear that the taxpayer will not be paying for this. I welcome this. We must strive to always protect taxpayers against loss of business that is not the fault of the tax payer."
And this is a Councillor !! JUST WHERE DOES HE THINK THE MONEY COMES FROM ?”
by elgoog
Friday, February 15 2013, 9:14AM
“However it is labelled any loss of income is a cost to the taxpayer.”