Chelmsford Borough Council is set, like Essex County Council, to keep its council tax rise for 2004-05 to less than five per cent.
The council's executive is being recommended next Wednesday (Feb 4) to settle on a tax for borough purposes of £130.62 at Band D, a 4.95 per cent rise on the current year's £124.46.
The borough tax is only a small part of the total bill received by taxpayers, the lion's share of which, around 80 per cent, goes to the county council.
It also includes parish council, police, and fire authority precepts.
The county council's cabinet on Tuesday confirmed its announcement of last week that it will recommend a rise of 4.7 per cent, to a Band D of £891.54, to the full council.
Cllr John Galley, executive member for finance at Chelmsford Borough Council, said "We are very pleased that we have been able to keep the rise so low without having to cut any major services."
The Conservative-controlled county council last year blamed its huge 16.7 per cent rise on the switching of government grant to Labour heartlands in the north, and say they have managed to keep this year's increase down after a rigorous root and branch review of all services and departments, and a slightly better than expected central grant.
Council Leader, Lord Hanningfield, told the cabinet "I have never known so much work go into a budget. We did in the end get a slightly better grant from the government, but not nearly as much as some of our colleagues. And there was £7.7 million extra in the mini-budget at the end of the year which has helped to keep the council tax down, but we don't know if that will continue."
Published Wednesday January 28, 2004
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article