Council budget cuts

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Just listening to bbc breakfast just now , and there was a bit of news about some local authorities in the U.K ( didn,t catch which ones ) who are now switching of certain areas of street lighting through out the night as a way of saving money .

What a splendid bit of news , good old fashioned common sense .

I have said this many times in the past to various people that Shetland,s lighting up of obscure and remote places is a terrible waste .

Of course we probably have all the health and safety nuts against such a thing but real and direct savings could be made immediatly .

For one instance , several rural ferry terminals have several to many street lighting blazing away all night long completly ridiculous!

Could some sort of motion trigger not be fitted so as the lights come on if persons arrive in the night to such places ?

Also in small rural communities and the town for that matter you could reduce the lights on by 50% quite easily and perhaps have the 50% left on to go on some sort of dimmer after say 1.00 am ? remember cars have there own lights and in days gone by people wid carry a blinkie if they felt uneasy with the dark.

Again industrial areas , all lights aff apart from security motion triggered lighting , that way it would be far more apparent if somebody was up to no good and the savings would be tremendous .

Such a saving would make music lessons free permanantly and probably claw back the 1/2 million lost to the Chief exec within a few years.

On another note I would still like to see this present town hall bunch all stand down first , have absolutely no faith in them until this happens .

[Marooned in Maywick]

Not only would it save money for the SIC...everyone buying a torch or batteries would be contributing to the local economy.

[Chalklate]

In last weeks Shetland Times (26/02/10) on page 5 there is a boxed advert showing 'How councillors saved millions from budget'

 

Among the savings approved last week was '£750,000 from offering only a one per cent pay rise for staff next year instead of 2.5 per cent.

 

I hope this is not the 2.5 per cent that staff had to strike for !!!!!

[MJ]

Not only would it save money for the SIC...everyone buying a torch or batteries would be contributing to the local economy.

Does anyone buy torches that needs batteries any more?

 

 

It would be great not to have to deal with all the light pollution from Skeld though. Never could figure out why in the UK we light up the sky as well as the roads.

[paulb]

what light pollution. apart from the kids leaving the lights on

[stephen]

The main cost saving that will be coming is from jobs. SIC employs a heck of alot of people up here, and jobs will go (through natural wastage as the council does not support redundancy). The problem I see with this is the economy relies of the council for jobs. loose a few hundred council posts, this impacts local businesses such as shops etc. It is a chain reaction. which could wreck the Shetland community. I think that it is important to support council employment up here and attempt to maintain its levels.

 

Another huge mistake in cost savings IMO would be to cut subsidies and local contracts. Cutting subsidies to things like piers, buses would again bring the community to its knees.

 

Where to look for cost savings (IMO):

Ferry fuel - cut the frequency of ferries off peak, saving fuel

Paper - switch to (where possible) E-mail and PDF

Electricity - switch of every other street light sunday- thursday after 10pm

Printer toner - Take out colour printers and replace with monochrome in council offices/ schools

Relocation Allowance - end this

Put all public buildings on timers to switch of electrical appliances at nights

Put public services on same levels as the mainland (ie. Waste collection, gritting, street cleaning

 

There is too much money to be saved before going down the route of ending services and loosing staff. What I have posted is scraping the surface, but I am sure there are copious amounts of savings available.

[Carlos]

Also in small rural communities and the town for that matter you could reduce the lights on by 50% quite easily and perhaps have the 50% left on to go on some sort of dimmer after say 1.00 am ?

Include the cost of control boxes and rewiring each individual circuit into 2 separate ones, it wouldn't be something for nothing.

Also I think the local authorities band together to get the best rate for electricity for the street lights? And maybe that it's a price per light, regardless of the hours used?

Environmental benefits likely stronger than the economic ones.

[keetiebairdie]

When it comes to cuts in spending, let's remember that there are some who are better off than others, especially when it comes to the issue of salaries.

 

I have never understood why there should be a % increase 'across the board' This just ends up with the rich being richer and the less rich becoming poorer. i.e. £20k x 2.5% = £500pa, £50k x 2.5% = £1,250 - and so the gap widens.

If increments are supposed to be in line with the cost of living, this should be looked at again. a level, say, £500pa increase to all would be fairer. And those who earn much less than £20k would really reap the benefit - but that is not likely to happen

 

No wonder there is much discontent amongst our work force.

[carlossimon]

Also in small rural communities and the town for that matter you could reduce the lights on by 50% quite easily and perhaps have the 50% left on to go on some sort of dimmer after say 1.00 am ?

Include the cost of control boxes and rewiring each individual circuit into 2 separate ones, it wouldn't be something for nothing.

Also I think the local authorities band together to get the best rate for electricity for the street lights? And maybe that it's a price per light, regardless of the hours used?

Environmental benefits likely stronger than the economic ones.

 

Many of the streetlights need replacement anyway, surely installing more cost efficient lighting at the same time as replacing tired units wouldn't cost that much compared with replacing like for like.

[Ghostrider]

The main cost saving that will be coming is from jobs. SIC employs a heck of alot of people up here, and jobs will go (through natural wastage as the council does not support redundancy). The problem I see with this is the economy relies of the council for jobs. loose a few hundred council posts, this impacts local businesses such as shops etc. It is a chain reaction. which could wreck the Shetland community. I think that it is important to support council employment up here and attempt to maintain its levels.

 

An admirable stance, the Unions nationally in the early 70's apparently thought it was the only way to go too. Unfortunately history tells us how it worked for them, and I fear it could go the same way for us if used to maintain council staff numbers.

 

The nationalised coal, steel, car making etc industries couldn't afford or survive carrying a plethora of "non-jobs", can Shetland afford and survive with them?

 

It come back to the same argument that has been raised in the "support your local shops" debate. Why should all of Shetland's Council Tax payers subsidise the chosen lifestyle of x number of arguably un-necessary staff on the SIC payroll through higher tax payments, any more than Shetland consumers should subsidise the chosen lifestyle of local business owners through higher product costs.

 

Certainly, I agree that the first line of savings should be drawn from looking at how exactly the same services as we have now can be delivered more economically, through reductions and savings in non-wage costs. But if that in itself isn't adequate, I could not support a reduction in services and/or more/higher up front end user fees without seeing the excesses of staffing trimmed first - beginning from the top and working downwards.

 

An organisation with adequate on the ground workers but light on bosses will still deliver to a reasonable degree, an organisation light on workers on the ground but top heavy with bosses will be a shambles producing next to nothing.

 

The council exists first and foremost as a service delivery vehicle, its responsibility to providing those services in the best possible way it can must always take first priority at all times, its responsibility to propping up the local economy via its payroll can at best only ever rank as a poor second in council priorities.

[Stirrer]

I agree that much savings can be made in the present system before service cuts are started.

 

The most obvious answer that this problem would be to start closing all the very small rural schools.

 

That way the same service delivery is obtained (i.e. the bairns get taught - perhaps even to a better standard), and the community pays less for the service.

 

Surely a win / win situation.

[daveh]

Why are so many council staff allowed to take council vans home at night and the weekends? I can fully understand if the need to go directly and urgently to an out of town site the following morning but is that applicable in so many cases? Apart from the fixed costs of running a vehicle, the fuel for the journeys to/from the drivers' homes are presumably paid for by the council. This certainly seems to be a waste of ratepayers' money.

Is there a pool system for the vans or are they allocated individually?

[piggywiggie]

waht makes you think that its a waste?

[Carlos]

Many of the streetlights need replacement anyway, surely installing more cost efficient lighting at the same time as replacing tired units wouldn't cost that much compared with replacing like for like.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is what is being done, using more efficient kinds of lights and downward pointing so less light spill.

Changing wiring and control gear to allow selective dimming / timing / switching off half the lights would have an extra cost up front, and you'd have to see how long it took to make that back in savings in the electricity.

Similar to tunnels, maybe you save money in the long term, as long as you have the capital available to spend now to start it off.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

plenty of good common sense cost saving measures pointed out here , especially from stephen , daveh and stirrer .

Apart from carlos nitpicking over the costs of switching off the hugely unecessary amount of lighting , it has to be an immediate saving with a pro- green message.

I would also suggest tunnel's to the big three , whalsay , bressay and then Yell should proceed in that order , perhaps on a 5 , 10 and 15 year time scale for completion.

Ferry men may not like it , but a large percentage would be retiring within this time scale .

Tunnel technology is now well proven and the long term savings would be very substantial .

I would also recommend evicting the population of Foula , there residence on that Isle is a huge financial burden .