Agenda item

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources concerning the Money Plan 2016-21 and Budget Proposals for 2016-17.

 

66.1       Council considered a report of the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources concerning the Money Plan 2016-21 and Budget Proposals for 2016-17.

 

66.2       Councillor James (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economy) moved the recommendations in the report and thanked the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resource and Head of Finance and his team for their work on the budget. He noted the challenging financial climate and reduction in funding from central government explaining that a significant savings would continue to be required in future years. He reported that cumulative savings of £10 million had been made over the last 10 years and he thanked staff for all that they had achieved. The ongoing objective was to protect frontline services and make savings through shared services, income generation and efficiencies; the Council’s headcount had reduced and an accommodation review would be undertaken. £607,000 of savings were proposed for 2016/17, which was £60,000 more than required to allow a cushion for in-year variances.

 

Council Tax would be increased by £5; there was no longer an incentive from central government to freeze Council Tax and, during the budget consultation, residents had indicated that they supported an increase. There would be no increase to garden waste collection and parking charges.

 

He reported that 2015-16 had been a year of significant progress, including acting as a host city for the Rugby World Cup, securing funding for the new bus station and other key regeneration priorities. He announced that the Council would contribute up to £100,000 of revenue from the former South West Regional Development Agency assets to Gloucester City Football Club to support their objective to bring forward the football ground.

 

He concluded by saying that, while savings were key, so was income generation, and he stated that the Council would deliver prosperity to the City and its residents.

 

66.3       Councillor Norman seconded the motion and noted the need to make difficult decisions in order to protect the services that residents prioritised. He explained that there was an assumption from central government that local authorities would use their powers to raise Council Tax locally and that failure to do so would impact on future funding settlements. He reported that the decision to increase Council Tax by £5 would reduce the savings required over the life of the Money Plan by £500,000.

 

The majority of the £607,000 savings for 2016/17 were already in place to enable full delivery in year and included a proposed transfer to the General Fund of £60,000 as protection against failure to deliver any of the savings in-year. Savings in 2017/18 and 2018/19 would need to be frontloaded, but this would enable reductions in subsequent years.

 

He acknowledged that the savings targets were challenging and advised that they would be carefully monitored to ensure delivery of key outputs and maintenance of the General Fund in excess of £1.6 million throughout the term of the Money Plan with capacity to manage in the event of any slippage.

 

He thanked the residents of Gloucester for the record response to the budget consultation and advised that the core views had informed the revised budget proposals. He stated that the Administration would continue to listen to residents when putting forward future savings or spending proposals.

 

In respect his Performance and Resources portfolio he noted £175,000 of savings achieved through the transfer of the Council’s Human Resources service to the County Council and the proposal to make a saving in the budget for the Minimum Revenue Provision. A further £20,000 of savings had been identified through efficiencies that would not impact on services. He thanked the Finance Team for their hard work and stated that despite the significant challenges ahead, the Council would continue to deliver the services required by residents.

 

66.4       Councillor Hilton announced that he was proposing four amendments to the budget proposals.

 

He proposed that the annual cost of a green bin for garden waste collections be reduced by £5 at a total cost of £90,000 per year. He advised that the reduced charge would result in an uplift in the number of subscribers to the service by approximately 5% (900 households), raising an additional £27,900, therefore providing a net additional cost to the council of £62,500. He stated that it would also help the Council to meet its recycling targets.

 

He proposed that Marketing Gloucester Limited (MGL) be instructed to remove all advertising boards from roundabouts in the City at a cost of £10,000.

 

66.5       Councillor Haigh raised a point of order. She stated that Councillor Hilton’s amendment regarding the removal of advertising from the City’s roundabouts contravened Council Procedure Rule 16.02 and should be deemed out of order.

 

66.6       Following the receipt of advice from the Managing Director and Monitoring Officer, the Mayor stated that the amendment regarding the removal of advertising from the City’s roundabouts would be deemed out of order in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.02 because it was substantially the same as a motion rejected within the last six months.

 

66.7       Councillor Hilton asked for his objection to the Mayor’s ruling to be recorded in the minutes.

 

66.8       Councillor Hilton proposed that the Council agree to support the County Council’s commitment to set aside £50,000 to carry out an independent study to look at the 30+ Air Quality Management Areas and examine solutions to reducing levels of pollution at those sites by setting aside a maximum of £8,000 to participate in the study.

 

He explained that the total cost of the amendments he was proposing was £80,500 and that he proposed to fund this by moving all Council staff into Herbert and Kimberley warehouses and mothballing Phillpotts warehouse until it could be prepared for letting to the voluntary sector and start-up businesses. He stated that it could save the Council in the region of £83,000 initially and then between £300,000 and £700,000 when let. He also proposed to end the Council’s LGIU subscription, saving £3,000 per year, as it duplicated information already provided by the LGA and was therefore an unnecessary expense.

 

He noted the savings amounted to £86,000 plus additional income from renting out Phillpotts Warehouse. He proposed that the £3,000 surplus be added to the Council balances.

 

66.9       Councillor Haigh stated that the Conservative Administration had accepted the unreasonable cuts forced upon the Council by central government and that ultimately residents would end up paying more Council Tax for lower quality services. She remarked that the poorest and most deprived were worst hit by the cuts and that the devolution agenda was primarily about devolving the decisions on cuts. She noted that savings continued to be delivered through shared services, job losses and increased fees and charges. She raised concerns about whether the Amey contract savings could be achieved and questioned how long the Council could continue to fund Marketing Gloucester Limited. She further questioned the Council’s ability to continue protecting frontline services whilst also delivering significant savings. She stated that the Labour Group would not be supporting the proposed budget.

 

66.10   Councillor Hilton moved his first amendment proposing to reduce the annual cost of a green bin for garden waste collections by £5.

 

66.11   Councillor McLellan seconded the amendment.

 

66.12   Councillor James did not accept the amendment. He stated that it was based upon assumptions that could not be quantified.

 

66.13   Councillor Hampson stated that the amendment was not supported by any evidence.

 

66.14   Councillor Porter referenced the results of the budget consultation which demonstrated that 75% of respondents supported either an increase in the green waste collection charge or leaving it at the same level. He reported that an additional 2000 residents had taken up the service since the bin stickers had been introduced and stated that there was no evidence that to support the supposition that reducing the charge would increase the uptake.

 

66.15   Councillor Haigh explained that the premise for the garden waste charge came from a Task and Finish Group study and that it was intended to cover the cost of the service. The service should neither make a profit, nor be subsidised. If the charge was reduced it would be being subsidised by other council taxpayers.

 

66.16   Councillor McLellan commented that the increase in uptake reported by Councillor Porter would pay for the proposed reduction in cost making the service cost neutral again.

 

66.17   Councillor Hilton stated that there would be at least a 5% increase in uptake and that this could increase further in the future.

 

66.18   The amendment was put to the vote and was lost.

 

66.19   Councillor Hilton moved his second amendment seeking to set aside a maximum of £8,000 to participate in a study to look of the 30+ Air Quality Management Areas.

 

66.20   Councillor McLellan seconded the amendment.

 

66.21   Councillor James did not accept the amendment, but agreed to bring forward a report to Cabinet exploring the matter properly and gave a commitment to deal with the costs associated as an in-year pressure if the Council decided to participate in the study.

 

66.22   Councillor Hilton accepted the proposal and withdrew the amendment.

 

66.23   Councillor Hilton moved his third amendment proposing to move all Council staff into Herbert and Kimberley warehouses and mothball Phillpotts warehouse until it could be prepared for letting to the voluntary sector and start-up businesses. He stated that it could save the Council in the region of £83,000 initially and then between £300,000 and £700,000 when let. The amendment also proposed to end the Council’s LGIU subscription, saving £3,000 per year, as it duplicated information already provided by the LGA and was therefore an unnecessary expense.

 

66.24   Councillor McLellan seconded the amendment.

 

66.25   Councillor James did not accept the amendment.

 

66.26   Councillor Haigh welcomed the proposal for a review of the City Council’s office accommodation, but that it would need to be a thorough report. She added that she valued the LGIU subscription.

 

66.27   Councillor Pullen stated that mothballing a building was not a simple task and that security and maintenance matters had to be properly considered prior to making any decisions.

 

66.28   Councillor James highlighted his disappointment that the Liberal Democrat Group, unlike the Labour Group, had not taken up the offer of a discussion about the proposed budget and he noted that the amendments had not been subject to any consultation. He advised that an accommodation review was underway and that is was important to await the outcome before making any decisions. He noted that the figures quoted in the amendment were unachievable. He advised that he would reconsider the LGIU subscription when it was up for renewal and undertake appropriate consultation with Members.

 

66.29   Councillor Smith stated that mothballing a building would not simply reduce the accommodation costs by a third and that the rental estimates were unrealistic and unachievable. She reported that she found the information from the LGIU to be very valuable.

 

66.30   Councillor McLellan noted that his Group had at least put forward some alternative budget proposals, unlike the Labour Group. He reported than many areas of the Docks warehouse complex were empty resulting in unnecessary costs. He stated that he understood the need for a full review, but that the amendment would save the Council money in the short term.

 

66.31   Councillor Hilton stated that the financial estimates were realistic and that a variety of options were available for the renting out of Phillpotts Warehouse and significant income could be achieved.

 

66.32   The amendment was put the vote and was lost.

 

66.33   Councillor Noakes noted the achievement of a £200,000 reduction in the management fee for Aspire and explained that there were no savings plans for the Culture and Leisure portfolio in 2016-17 due to the implementation of a new Cultural Strategy that would drive key aspirations. She advised that £20,000 match funding was required, plus £30,000 support in kind from the Council and its partners, to meet the requirements for Arts Council funding and support in taking the strategy forward. She stated that the Festival and Events Programme demonstrated the role of MGL in supporting the Council’s objectives and added that staff would continue to work hard to reduce costs and maximise revenue across her portfolio.

 

66.34   Councillor Dallimore noted that there were no forecasted savings in the Communities and Neighbourhoods portfolio, but that it was unlikely to be able to continue indefinitely. As a result of savings made in previous years, it was possible to fund the advice services at the same levels and continue grant funding for the voluntary and community sector. The Council would continue to support and engage residents via asset based community development and the successful of community building scheme would be expanded. The newly renamed Councillors’ Community Fund would be increased to £2,000 through the redistribution of existing budgets and an £8,000 saving had been made in the community safety budget. She thanked staff and Members for their work on the budget, which she believed showed that the Council valued and listened to feedback from residents.

 

66.35   Councillor Porter reported that significant savings had been proposed in the Environment portfolio and that work was already underway to achieve them, with the Amey contract currently subject to negotiation. By increasing charges for some services, encouraging a higher uptake of others and working to increase recycling rates opportunities for income would be maximised.

 

66.36   Councillor McLellan stated that he considered the savings identified against the Amey contract to be unrealistic, particularly given that the contract of the fleet of vehicles was due to expire in December 2016.

 

66.37   Councillor S. Witts asked why 657 of the 1928 responses to the budget consultation were deemed to be unusable.

 

66.38   Councillor James noted that the Labour Group had not put forward any alternative budget proposals. He highlighted the significant contributions from central government for important regeneration projects, which demonstrated the government’s support for the City’s ambitions. He praised the work of MGL and their role in bringing visitors ad external funding into the City. He undertook to ensure that Councillor S. Witts received a written response regarding the budget consultation.

 

66.39   The motion was put to the vote and, in accordance with Part 4 Rule 18.05 of the Constitution and at the request of Councillors James, Dallimore, D. Norman, Porter and Noakes, names were recorded as follows:

 

For                         Against                   Abstentions

James                              Field

Dallimore                Beeley

Noakes                   Haigh

Norman D.              Hilton

Porter                     McLellan

Gravells                  Smith

Tracey                    Hobbs

Hanman                  Lugg

Lewis                      Witts C.

Llewellyn                 Bhaimia

Williams                  Witts S.

Dee                        Brown

Taylor                     Hansdot

Patel                       Chatterton

Randle                    Pullen

Toleman                 Hampson

Etheridge

Norman H.

Pearsall

(19)                        (16)                        (0)

 

66.40 The motion was carried.

 

66.41 RESOLVED –

 

(1)       That the proposals for the 2016/17 budget included in the report be approved.

 

(2)       That the implementation of the target budget reductions set in the Money Plan 2016/2021 be approved.

 

(3)       That it be noted that consultation has been undertaken on budget savings proposals to achieve the level of savings required in 2016/17.