Agenda item

Money Plan 2017-22 & Budget Proposals 2017/18

To consider the joint report of the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources concerning the Money Plan 2017-22 & Budget Proposals 2017/18.

Minutes:

68.1    Council considered the report of the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources  (Councillor Norman) which sought approval for the 2017-22 Money Plan & the 2017/18 Budget Proposals.

 

Councillor James moved the recommendations set out in the report, thanking The Head of Finance and officers within the Finance team for their contribution in developing the proposals. He requested that the vote on the item be recorded and was supported by a further four members of the Conservative Group.

 

Councillor James highlighted key areas of the report, advising that maximising on shared service opportunities and the efforts of partners had contributed to significant savings targets. He reported that Council had made representations to the appropriate authority following the proposed revisions to the New Homes Bonus Scheme. He noted the movement to localise business rates but advised that as this income was not guaranteed it had not been included within the base budget.

 

Referring to the Together Gloucester project, Councillor James thanked officers from across the Council who had come together to develop the proposal that were currently out for consultation. He reported that it was the aim of the organisation to reduce the number of compulsory redundancies, noting that 30 posts within the Council were currently vacant. He stated that following the implementation of the proposals, the organisation would be required to adapt and work flexibility to meet the Council’s priorities and warned that the organisation could not expect to continue to operate and carry out all the functions it had done so previously.

 

Councillor James acknowledged the difficult decisions taken in relation to the voluntary and grants sector, encouraging these groups to embrace new ways of working and accessing alternative funding streams such as the Gloucester Lottery.

 

Councillor James reported that the proposals intended to raise the charges for the garden waste collection service and car parking within the City Centre. He noted that this was the first increase in the garden waste collection since the scheme’s inception in 2011 and the car parking tariff would continue to remain below the rates set by the Labour administration in 2004. He went on further to report that the proposals included a rise in Council Tax by £5.00 a year for a band D property, which represented a 2.7% increase.

 

Concluding with a summary on the proposals of finances related to capital programmes, Councillor James explained that projects such as the Bus Station, Black Dog Way and Barbican Car Parks were funded jointly through City Council and central government financing and expressed hope that support from central government would continue. He noted the increase in ear-marked reserves and stressed the importance of taking financially prudent and potentially difficult decisions within the challenging economic environment.

 

68.2    Councillor Norman seconded the motion, reporting that the Local Government Finance Settlement grant faced unprecedented reduction in formula grant. He reported that the £255,000 increase following the pension triennial actuarial valuation and the 1% pay award together contributed to an additional £400,000 budgetary pressure when taking into account market inflation.

 

Councillor Norman stressed the importance of embodying change including alternative options for interaction with clients, stating that his portfolio of services would be leading on channel shift strategy and implementation.

 

Councillor Norman welcomed the responses received as part of the budget consultation which identified services that were most valued by residents of the City. He confirmed that business rates growth had not been included within the base budget, due to the future uncertainties regarding this income stream. He stated that whilst the proposals contained difficult decisions, the administration had developed a measured budget that would help the Council accommodate the changing nature of local government.

 

68.3    Councillor Haigh reported that the outlook for local government continued to remain bleak, as the austerity programme began by Conservative administration continued to be pushed forward. She argued that investment in public services promoted local economies and assisted those most in need.

 

            Referring to the Together Gloucester proposals, she explained that the Labour Group opposed the project in principle but had submitted detailed amendments as part of the consultation process. She argued that the proposals were very vague and provided little detail on how the organisation were expected to change and which aspect of work would no longer be carried out.

 

She went on further to say that alternative methods of communication were inaccessible to current users of the service and were unlikely to be implemented within the required timescale. She stated that the Together Gloucester project lacked innovation and expressed disappointment that opportunities to promote shared service working arrangements had not been explored further, despite a memorandum of understanding with Gloucestershire County Council being in place. Councillor Haigh noting the additional budget pressures in 2019 and beyond, questioned where savings were expected to be made. She concluded by reporting that the Labour Group intended to present a series of amendments as an alternative to the budget proposals put forward by the administration.

 

68.4    Councillor Hilton expressed his disappointment at the budget proposals, stating that the programme of perpetual austerity contributed to the continual diminishing of services. He noted that staff were anxious of the intended 60 job losses and the loss of specialisms. He expressed concern that officers would be unable to complete projects due to high workload levels. Commenting on the Leader of the Council’s meeting with the Minister of Local Government on the final budget settlement, he remarked that this should have taken place before the settlement was announced to exert real influence.

 

Noting the reduction in the funding to advice centres, increase in garden waste charges and the loss of working hours as a result of the job losses, he questioned whether the Council had appropriate resources to deliver the services residents required.

 

68.5    Councillor Haigh, seconded by Councillor Pullen proposed the following amendment:

 

“Council notes the Budget proposals and reports before it. Council further notes that this Authority has been subjected to the 7th greatest cut of any District Council in England. This Council agrees that these cuts are excessive and that the further reduction in funding projected in the money plan will risk the viability of the Council.

 

Council notes that £354k that we had originally expected to receive in New Home Bonus has been taken from us and given to the County Council for social care. Council notes that the gap in funding for social care in the County is in excess of £10m and that this measure is unfair and will not solve the crisis. This Council believes that the Government should have found new money for this but that it has chosen to damage service to residents.

 

Council notes that £1m of the savings required are made within a ‘transformation’ project, Together Gloucester. These savings are assumed and the reorganisation itself is the purview of the Managing Director. Council is concerned that front line services will be damaged and that the work of the Council in making our City a safe, healthy and growing place will be damaged.

 

Nonetheless, in the face of these cuts Council agrees that we should prioritise the things we and our residents value and depend on. Council therefore resolves to amend the budget in the following ways:

 

1.    Move the Tourist Information Centre to the Museum of Gloucester – saving £25K

2.    End the management agreement with Marketing Gloucester and bring the service in house making an additional saving of £59k

3.    Reduce the size of the Cabinet by 2, saving £20k

4.    Stipulate that £46K of the surplus from the Business rates pool be allocated to the Voluntary Sector grants budget. 

5.    Delete the saving for replacement wheelie bins cost £5k and reinstate the free replacement service.

6.    Delete the savings in the Voluntary Sector Grants budget – cost £145k

These measures sit within the money plan as proposed by the administration and have no financial impact on residents.”

 

68.6    Councillor Haigh reported that the alternative budget proposals put forward by the Labour Group aimed to develop a more measured budget that removed damaging cuts to essential services and which did not have negative cost implications for the Money Plan 2017-2022, referred to in appendix 1 of the report.

 

            She explained that relocating the Tourist Information Centre (TIC) to the Museum of Gloucester would not only drive footfall to the venue but additionally reduce overheads, noting that the original intention to move the TIC to 26 Westgate Street had been superseded by the relocation of the Gloucester Antiques Centre to this location, which was now trading successfully.

 

Referring to the Marketing Gloucester Limited (MGL), Councillor Haigh commented that bringing this function in-house would resolve long standing governance issues, save management fee costs and combine regeneration, tourism and culture into one holistic service. She went on further to explain that a reduction in the Cabinet Members would mirror the reducing size of the organisation.

 

Councillor Haigh noted the 46K surplus generated from the Business Rates pool and proposed that this income be allocated the voluntary sector grants budget to support those most vulnerable. She remarked that the replacement waste container charge was cumbersome and resulted in very little savings and encouraged Members to support its deletion from the proposals.

 

68.7    Councillor Pullen expressed concern that funding for voluntary sector grants was being substituted by the Gloucester Lottery, noting that the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods (Councillor Jennie Watkins) had provided assurance that this would not be the case. He supported Councillor Haigh’s comment on the advice centres, stating that the Gloucester Law Centre and Citizens Advice Bureau saved approximately 300 families from eviction and thereby saving the Council significant social and housing related costs.

 

68.8    Councillor James did not accept the amendment.

 

68.9    Referring to parts 1 and 2 of the amendment, the Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure (Councillor Noakes) reported that the Together Gloucester project would transform Council services, including the Museums and TIC Service. She welcomed the successes of MGL, including the SOMAC Festival, Tall Ships Festival and Beatrix Potter Trail. She noted that the City had seen a substantial increase in visitor numbers in the summer of 2015 and South West Research had provident independent data that demonstrated this increase. She stated that reduction in the MGL funding grant would mean that the company would be required creatively to attract external sponsorship.

 

68.10  Councillor Fearn expressed disappointment with the intended cuts to the advice centres. She welcomed the support and assistance that the advice centres provided to those in need and in particular to those individuals with high levels of personal debt. She reported that the Citizens Advice Bureau had successfully managed to write off approximately £4 million of their customers’ debt. She conveyed concern that halving the funding for these centres would force a reduction in operational hours.

 

68.11  Councillor James advised that the administration was unable to accept the amendments as they all required detailed consideration and impact analysis. He noted that costs associated with relocation of the TIC had not been included within the figures presented by the Labour Group and reported that the size of the City Council’s Cabinet was comparable to many other local authorities of a similar size. Referring to growth related to the Business Rates Pool, Councillor James advised that partners within the pool had agreed to ear mark any surplus for regeneration purposes and noted that any alternative uses of these funds would need to be agreed by all partners within the pool. He went on further to say that the replacement charge for waste containers was intended as deterrent to individuals who abused the current system and stated that when developing the budget proposals it was only fair that all areas of the Council were considered and contributed towards the savings target.

 

68.12  Councillor Hilton stated his opposition to the amendment. He explained that whilst he was in favour of the deletion of the budgets cuts to the voluntary and community sector and the replacement waste container charge, he was unable to accept the others, as they required more detailed analysis and consideration of long term impact.

 

68.13  Councillor Watkins expressed support for the advice centres operating in the City and pledged continual support for users of the service. She commented that the voluntary and grants sector had been sheltered from budget reductions in previous years but acknowledged that this could not continue and that all areas of the Council were required to contribute to the savings target. She noted that responses from the budget consultation had ranked community development (including grant support) as one of the least important areas of the Council, remarking that the Council had a duty to all residents to ensure taxpayers money was being spent wisely.

 

68.14  Councillor Coole encouraged Members to reject the proposals, reporting that the voluntary and grants sector had experienced significant and consistent funding cuts over previous years. He queried whether it was fair to expect the City’s most vulnerable and in need residents to experience the impact of the cuts.

 

68.15  Councillor Cook advised Members that the charge for replacement waste containers was to encourage residents to take responsibility for the containers and deter individuals from damaging these at the Council’s expense.

 

68.16  Councillor Lugg expressed scepticism at the effectiveness of the policy, stating that it was unlikely that residents intentionally damaged their containers.

 

68.17  Councillor Haigh, with support from four members of the Labour Group, requested a recorded vote, the results of which were as follows:

 

 

            For                                          Against                                  Abstaining

            Hampson                               James                                                Hilton

Haigh                                     Watkins                                  Wilson

Lugg                                       Cook                                       D. Brown

Bhaimia                                 Noakes                                  Brazil             

Pullen                                                D. Norman                             J. Brown

Coole                                     Organ                                     Hyman          

Fearn                                     Gravells                                 Ryall  

Smith                                      Tracey

                                                Hanman

                                                Lewis 

                                                Morgan

                                                Williams

                                                Dee

                                                Taylor

                                                Patel

                                                Toleman

                                                H. Norman

                                                Pearsall

                                                Finnegan

                                                Hawthorne

                                                Melvin           

                                                                                   

(8)                                           (21)                                         (7)

 

 

68.18  The amendment was lost.

 

68.19  Councillor Haigh, seconded by Councillor Fearn proposed the following amendment:

 

“This Council resolves to move the Tourist Information Centre to the Museum of Gloucester – saving £25K and to adjust the money plan accordingly.”

 

68.20  Councillor Haigh commented that the relocation of the award winning Tourist Information Centre (TIC) to the City Museum would raise footfall at the City Museum and reduce operating costs. She noted that the City Museum was in close proximity to the gate streets and within walking distance to the bus and train stations.

 

68.21  Councillor Fearn advised Members that she had previously worked at the TIC and stated that most users of the service specifically located the venue and were likely to continue to seek out the venue were relocated elsewhere.

 

68.22  Councillor James did not accept the amendment.

 

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

 

68.24  Councillor Stephens, seconded by Councillor Pullen proposed the following amendment:

 

“This Council resolves to end the management agreement with Marketing Gloucester and bring the service in house making an additional saving of £59k and to adjust the money plan accordingly.”

 

68.25  Councillor Stephens stated that an audit of Marketing Gloucester Limited (MGL) had resulted in the lowest assurance level that could be provided and had been unable to evidence value for money.  He reported that a further follow up audit of MGL was scheduled for March 2017 and queried how a decision of the funding on MGL could be determined without the results of the follow up audit being available.

 

68.26  Councillor Watkins did not accept the amendment.

 

68.27  Councillor Wilson expressed sympathy with Councillor Stephens’ comments, noting that during his time as Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee he had requested an audit of MGL due to concerns regarding governance arrangements. He explained that he was unwilling to support such an amendment until the results of the follow up audit had been considered.

 

68.28  Councillor Patel noted that MGL had helped to increase visitors to the City and worked hard to increase the City’s cultural offer.

 

68.29  Councillor Williams welcomed the key role that that MGL had played in the relocation of the Gloucester Antiques Centre from the Quays to 26 Westgate Street.

 

68.30  Councillor Pullen explained that no amendment to the events budget was being considered, acknowledging that events staff employed by MGL were extremely talented and could be potentially be employed directly by the City Council.

 

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

 

68.32  Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Lugg, proposed the following amendment:

 

“That this Council resolves to reduce the size of the Cabinet by 2, saving £20K and to adjust the money plan accordingly.”

 

68.33  Councillor Smith noted that the Together Gloucester restructure proposed four Heads of Service and reported that reducing the size of the Council’s Cabinet would demonstrate the administration’s support of the staff and contribute to the savings target.

 

68.34  Councillor James did not accept the amendment.

 

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

 

68.36  Councillor Haigh, seconded by Councillor Coole, proposed the following amendment:

 

“This Council resolves to stipulate that £46K of the surplus from the Business rates pool be allocated to the Voluntary Sector grants budget and to adjust the money plan accordingly.”

 

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

 

68.38  Councillor Lugg, seconded by Councillor Coole, proposed the following amendment:

 

“This Council resolves to delete the saving for replacement wheelie bins cost £5k and reinstate the free replacement service and to adjust the money plan accordingly.”

 

68.39  Councillor Lugg remarked that the charge was likely to increase the administrative strain on officers within the Council and increase the likelihood in fly tipping and thereby overall costs to the Council.

 

68.40  Councillor James did not accept the amendment.

 

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

 

68.42  Councillor Pullen, seconded by Councillor Fearn, proposed the following amendment:

 

“This Council resolve to stipulate that £90k of the surplus from the business rates pool and £55K from the General Fund Balance be allocated to Voluntary sector grants, deleting savings to the advice services and the rest to the grants funding at a cost of £145k and to adjust the money plan accordingly.”

 

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

 

68.44 Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Hilton, proposed the following amendments:

           

       “1.That the annual Garden Waste Charge which currently stands at £36 per year be frozen at this rate for 2017/2018 and

2.Payments to both the Gloucester Citizens Advice Bureau and Gloucester Law Centre under the current SLAs to remain unchanged from the payments made in 2016/2017.

These amendments will be financed by reducing the proposed increase of £174k to the general fund in 2017/2018.”

68.45  Councillor Wilson accepted the challenging financial situation commenting that the garden waste scheme was advertised as being cost neutral at its inception. He expressed concern at the cuts proposed to the voluntary and grants sector noting the additional strain that would place on these services. He explained the general fund balance reserves proposed in the Money Plan were above those that were considered prudent and this surplus could be utilised to fund the proposals outlined in the amendment. He commented that it was still the intention to retain general fund reserves and continue to keep these at the level they were currently operating.

68.46  Councillor James did not accept the amendment. 

68.47  Councillor Cook reported that there had been no increase in the costs of the garden waste scheme since its inception and continued to represent excellent value for money. He explained that the income generated would be re-invested into the street cleansing service.

68.48  Councillor Watkins noted concerns raised by Councillor Wilson  regarding the voluntary and grants sector and reported that the City Council were continuing to engage in discussions regarding suitable alternative locations for these services as a commitment of ongoing support.

68.49  Councillor Hilton commented that the amendment represented an affordable and sustainable budget. He reported that the City Council were proposing general fund balance reserves above those that were required.

68.50  Councillor James commented that due to uncertainties regarding the future of the New Homes Bonus Scheme, it was prudent to retain General Fund reserves to guard against any further reduction in formula grant.

68.51  The following amendment was put to the vote and names recorded at the request of Councillor Wilson and supported by a further four members of the Liberal Democrat Group:

            “That the annual Garden Waste Charge which currently stands at £36 per year be frozen at this rate for 2017/2018.”

           

            For                                                      Against         

            Hampson                                           James

            Haigh                                                 Watkins         

            Hilton                                                 Cook  

            Stephens                                           Noakes         

            Lugg                                                   D. Norman

            Wilson                                                Organ

            Bhaimia                                             Gravells

            D. Brown                                           Tracey

            Pullen                                                            Hanman

            Brazil                                                  Lewis

            J. Brown                                            Morgan

            Coole                                                 Williams

            Fearn                                                 Dee

            Hyman                                               Taylor

            Ryall                                                   Patel

            Smith                                                  Toleman

                                                                        H. Norman

                                                                        Pearsall

                                                                        Finnegan

                                                                        Hawthorne

                                                                        Melvin

(16)                                                     (21)

 

 

68.51 The amendment was lost.

 

68.52  The following amendment was put to the vote and names recorded at the request of Councillor Wilson and supported by a further four members of the Liberal Democrat Group:

            Payments to both the Gloucester Citizens Advice Bureau and Gloucester Law Centre under the current SLAs to remain unchanged from the payments made in 2016/2017.”

            For                                                      Against         

            Hampson                                           James

            Haigh                                                 Watkins         

            Hilton                                                 Cook  

            Lugg                                                   Noakes         

            Wilson                                                D. Norman

            Bhaimia                                             Organ

            D. Brown                                           Gravells

            Pullen                                                            Tracey

            Brazil                                                  Hanman

            J. Brown                                            Lewis

            Coole                                                 Morgan

            Fearn                                                 Williams

            Hyman                                               Dee

            Ryall                                                   Taylor

            Smith                                                  Patel

                                                                        Toleman

                                                                        H. Norman

                                                                        Pearsall

                                                                        Brazil

                                                                        Finnegan

                                                                        Hawthorne

(15)                                                     (21)

 

68.53 The amendment was lost.

68.54  Councillor Watkins noted the opposition to the proposed funding reduction to the voluntary and grants sector. She emphasised her continued support commenting that she had utilised services they offered at various times in her life. She advised that she would be requesting Councillor Hilton to write to the Leader of Cheltenham Borough Council to confirm their funding arrangements with advice centres such as Citizens Advice Bureau.

68.55  Councillor Haigh expressed concern regarding the size of the workforce following the Together Gloucester organisational change. She noted there were many uncertainties regarding the expected changes that both Members and residents were expected to make.

68.56  Councillor Stephens reported that the significant reduction in local government funding and the proposed annual increase in council tax meant that residents were having to pay more for fewer services.  He encouraged the Council to set up its own housing development company as a means of generating income.

68.57  Councillor Coole noted the lack of Member involvement  and public consultation in developing the Together Gloucester proposals. He reported that himself and Councillor Haigh had undertaken some informal consultation with visitors at Herbert Warehouse reception. He explained that the data they had collated had demonstrated that 91% of respondents preferred to face to face contact and 54% of respondents were opposed to an appointment only system. He stated there no credible alternatives currently available for members of the public to engage with the Council.

68.58  Councillor Pullen expressed concern that the organisation would be unable to retain or recruit staff with the relevant experience and skills in the future. He stated that the Council employed many skilled officers who would lose their professionalisms and were expected to become multi-skilled.

68.59 Councillor Organ acknowledged the variety of professional and skilled officers the Council employed and advised that the organisational restructure provided the opportunity for staff to continue and learn and develop their skill base.

67.60 Councillor James explained that the Together Gloucester project provided an opportunity for the organisation to transform its services in order to adapt to the changing nature of local government. He advised that the Council were currently courting interest in the Docks Warehouses and would bring a report to Cabinet when appropriate.

67.61 The motion was put to a recorded vote and was carried. The results were as follows:

            For                                          Against

            James                                                Hampson

            Watkins                                  Haigh

            Cook                                       Hilton

            Noakes                                  Stephens      

            D. Norman                             Lugg

            Organ                                     Wilson

            Gravells                                 Bhaimia

            Tracey                                    D. Brown

            Hanman                                Pullen

            Lewis                                      Brazil

            Morgan                                  J. Brown

            Williams                                 Coole

            Dee                                         Fearn

            Taylor                                     Hyman

            Patel                                       Ryall

            Toleman                                Smith

            H. Norman                            

            Pearsall                                

            Finnegan

            Hawthorne

            Melvin

(21)                                         (16)

      

67.59  RESOLVED:

1.        That the proposals for the 2017/18 budget included in this report be approved.

 

2.        That the implementation of the target budget reductions set in the Money plan 2017/2022 be approved.

 

3.        That it be noted that consultation has been undertaken on budget savings proposals to achieve the level of savings required in 2017/18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: