Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance & Community Development and Chief Finance Officer

 

The following is the recommended process to be followed for the debate relating to the Council’s Budget for 2011 - 2012, (Agenda item 13). The rules of procedure shall be varied accordingly for this item only.

 

1.         The Mayor to propose suspension of the following rules of debate:

 

-           That the time limit on speeches is relaxed with regard to the following speeches:-

 

§         Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development, (F), when moving the motion to adopt the budget being proposed by the Cabinet (“the Cabinet’s budget”), Stage 2(i).

 

§         Group Leaders when making Budget Statement on behalf of group, Stage 3(i) – (ii).

 

-           To permit the Cabinet Member F and Group leaders to speak more than once in the debate, (in addition to any right of reply etc), for the purpose of putting and answering questions at Stage 2(iii).

 

2.         Budget Statement and moving of motion.

 

(i)         The Cabinet Member F shall deliver the budget statement and formally move the resolutions set out in paragraph 1.2 of the report of the Cabinet Member Finance. (N.B. Not time limited)

 

(ii)        The seconder shall formally second the motion. (N.B. The seconder may reserve their speech until later in the debate prior to the closing speeches) 5 minute limit applies.

 

(iii)       Members may then ask questions of the Cabinet Member F (who may refer them to the Chief Finance Officer when appropriate), on matters relating to agenda item 13. (N.B. members are limited to one question only, without supplementary, and the Cabinet Member F shall wait until all questions have been put before responding).

 

3.         Statements by Group Leaders

 

(i)         Statement on behalf of the Conservative Group including tabling but not moving, any proposed amendment to the Cabinet’s budget. (no time limit)

 

(ii)        Statement on behalf of the People Against Bureaucracy Group including tabling, but not moving, any proposed amendment to the Cabinet’s budget. (No time limit).

 

4.         Formal moving, Seconding, debating, discussion and voting on any amendments tabled in the following order:

 

            - People Against Bureaucracy Group

            - Conservative Group

 

N.B. 

§         The Cabinet Member F has the right to a speech in reply at the end of the debate on any amendment. (10 mins).

 

§         The mover of an amendment may speak to move the amendment, (10 mins), and also has the right of reply to the debate immediately before the speech of the Cabinet Member F. (10 mins).

 

§         Amendments carried will become part of the substantive motion going forward. Once all proposed amendments have been debated and put to the vote the final version of the motion shall go forward to the next stage.

 

5          Consideration of Amendments

 

(a)       If the Cabinet’s budget has not been amended, the Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development to formally propose the budget (no speech), and the final proposal will be debated and voted upon subject to the Cabinet Member F's right of reply (10 mins).

 

(b)       If the Cabinet’s budget has been amended, before it is further debated and voted upon, the Mayor shall propose a brief adjournment in order that the Cabinet Member F can consider whether:

 

(i) the amendments are acceptable to the Cabinet - in which case the meeting will proceed as at (a) above; or

                 

(ii) the amendments are not acceptable to the Cabinet - in which case, the meeting will proceed as at (a) above save that, in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Rules, the Council may only make an in-principle decision which will be published and provided to the Leader of the Council for consideration.

 

Members returned at 4.10pm.

 

The Mayor, to facilitate the presentation of the Budget, proposed suspension of certain rules of debate, namely:-

 

That the time limit on speeches is relaxed with regard to the following speeches

• Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development when moving the motion to adopt the budget being proposed by the Cabinet.

• Group leaders or Group spokesperson when making budget statements on behalf of their group.

 

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development and Group Leaders could also speak more than once in the debate (in addition to any rights of reply etc) for the purpose of putting and answering questions. 

 

This was agreed by Council.

 

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development referred Members to the joint report of himself and the Chief Finance Officer as circulated with the agenda.  The report summarised the revised budget for 2010/11 and Cabinet’s final budget proposals for 2011/12 following consultation.

 

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development introduced the

budget proposals with a detailed speech (please refer to the papers for agenda item 4 for Council on 25 February 2011 for a full copy)  

 

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development moved acceptance of the 2011/12 Budget as set out in the report.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Jordan, who reserved his right to speak.

 

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development then responded to questions on the proposed Revenue and Capital Budget, with some input from the relevant Cabinet Members;

 

• Why under the new waste collection scheme, were areas such as Lansdown Road considered differently?

o       It was recognised that areas such as Lansdown Road had a large amount of multiple occupation housing and didn’t necessarily have storage at the front or rear of the building to house additional bins.  All residents would be offered this service but some tailor made solutions were required.

• With dwindling resources and the cost of maintaining the Municipal Offices, when would Cabinet accept the benefits of moving to a new location?

o       Cabinet were awaiting a report on the accommodation strategy but in reality, the Municipal Offices were relatively cheap to occupy and as such there was doubt about whether major savings would be achieved by such a move. Overview & Scrutiny Committees would be given the opportunity to comment on the report.

• Why was it taking such a time to arrange new management for the various park cafes, surely this didn’t bode well in view of strategic commissioning?

o       All cafes would be open by Race Week (15-18 March) and this had always been the timescale to which officers had been working. A significant amount of effort had gone into finalising arrangements with the new contractors.

• The Council Tax freeze was shown as a cost incurred and not a grant in future years, why was this?

o       The £197k grant that had been received from Government in support of the council tax freeze was shown in Appendix 2. The MTFS at appendix 11 took consideration of marginal changes over the next 5 years which indicated that the £197k grant would cease in 2015/16.

• Were Cabinet effectively putting this grant into Asset Management to pay for maintenance of council buildings?

o       This was not the case. 

• How did Cabinet intend to bridge the cumulative shortfall of £1.5m in 2015/16?

o       All services would be reviewed to assess how things could be done more efficiently and cost effectively.  This was the only way forward.

• Were Cabinet monitoring the use of Council owned car parks and had they considered reducing fees, to increase usage?

o       Ticket sales were monitored and Cabinet had not considered reducing parking fees in CBC car parks as local businesses had indicated that current levels were acceptable.

• The £58k associated with abolishing South West Councils was included in the draft budget but had been omitted from the final proposals, why?

o       The £58k was included to cover any potential pensions liability if South West Councils should be abolished. Indications were that 30 out of 41 local authorities had expressed their support for the future arrangements for South West Councils. Consequently this provision was no longer necessary.

• What would be the approach to the cutting of grass verges beyond 2011-2012?

o       This was a serious issue for Cheltenham and the council would be negotiating with Gloucestershire Highways when the contract ended next year. 

• Original proposals had suggested that the 2.5% increase in grant from Government in support of the council tax freeze would be a two year deal.  If this was the case, why wasn’t it included in the MTFS?

o       Whilst a two year deal may have formed part of the original proposals this has yet to be firmed up. As such, no assumptions had been made about the grant being repeated in future years.          

                 

Councillor Smith on behalf of the Conservative Group gave his response to the budget. He accepted that the budget was a result of external circumstances affecting all local authorities. He gave thanks to the work of the Bridging the Gap group and to all the staff who had the challenge to deliver the savings. Whilst acknowledging the challenge of producing a balanced budget in those circumstances he also had concerns that some of the proposals in the budget would put the standing of Cheltenham at risk, providing people with no reason to want to live, visit or invest in the town.

He took issue with the claim that the Budget had been consulted widely, when in actual fact there had been very little public response to the proposals published in December. The art of a good budget was finishing past commitments as well as planning for the future and he felt this budget demonstrated a loss of direction. 

 

Some of the key reasons that he was unable to support the budget were;

 

• The street cleaning proposals ignored the need to change the service and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issues being faced by residents.

 

• The proposal to cease providing dog bags was a short sighted one which failed to acknowledge the success of the initiative.  He was not confident that the impact of this decision had been fully considered and felt that residents would suffer as a consequence.

 

• The impact on the outreach work carried out by the Everyman Theatre. Geoffrey Rowe, Chief Executive of the Everyman Theatre had attended a meeting of the Social and Community O&S Committee and confirmed that outreach work would reduce as a result of the proposed reduction in grant.  This would make Cheltenham’s cultural offering unattainable to many of those who can’t afford to get involved. 

 

• Community groups had not been properly consulted regarding the proposals for the flowerbeds and the impact on visitor numbers had not been assessed.

 

• In the relation to verges, Gloucestershire County Council had always funded 5 cuts annually, which CBC had complimented with an additional 10 throughout the year.  He queried whether Cabinet had fully considered the safety issues of overgrown verges, which could be 14 inches in height in some places and the impact on the aesthetics of Cheltenham. 

 

• The assumptions made about the new (chargeable) green waste system posed the biggest risk to the budget. The Cabinet Member Sustainability had been unable to confirm to what extent the free service was currently being used and as such the targets could prove unachievable. 

 

• Cabinet were using the transfer of Concessionary Travel to Gloucestershire County Council as the reason for cancelling the taxi voucher scheme for people with disabilities, but this was a CBC commitment made to residents of Cheltenham.

 

• He could accept the rationale for the closure of some public toilets but stressed that Overview & Scrutiny Committees had been promised a list of alternatives, which was yet to materialise and were now told that this would be ready for the mid term outturn report?  His understanding was that many of those businesses that had been approached had shown reluctance to the idea.

 

• The Council had entered into a partnership to raise funds for the Brizen Young’s people centre to deliver the extension and business plan and yet, were now reneging on it at a critical time in this transition period.  Couldn’t the £45k being used to support the Warm and Well project have been used to support Brizen for another year? 
  
  
• Whilst he welcomed the commitment to invest £140k into the gardens, he felt that without a transitional grant to Cheltenham Festivals (CF), the investment would be pointless.  At a stage when CF were close to full independence the decision seemed petty and not driven by business need. He urged Council to heed the request from Sir Michael McWilliam for funding to be sustained.
  
  

In closing, he urged his Liberal Democrat colleagues to change the proposals which he felt would lead to a dirtier, less cultural and less attractive Cheltenham.

 

He would not be moving an amendment to the budget proposals. 

 

Councillor Godwin on behalf of the PABs gave his response to the Budget. His group recognised that setting a balanced budget was always a challenge and this year, in spite of the severe cuts, this had been achieved and it was for this reason that he would support the proposals.  Local savings were necessary however he did have some concerns about their long lasting impact. 

 

He expressed his opinion that the Conservatives had missed their opportunity to put forward an alternative budget if they were so strongly against the proposals.  He thanked the Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development for the many opportunities Members had been given to discuss the proposals, particularly at the overview and scrutiny committees.  

 

In seconding the budget, Councillor Jordan said this had proved a difficult budget necessitating proposals which he would have preferred not to have had made. Thankfully there had been no major cuts to services and the 5% reduction in staffing was mostly frozen posts which would be deleted. He highlighted the difficulties caused by the delay in the settlement figures.  In his capacity as Leader of the Council, he had signed a letter to the Government, which, whilst accepting that the deficit had needed to be addressed, had raised issue with the delay to the final settlement, which had also been worse than anticipated

 

In response to some of the concerns raised by Councillor Smith, he was confident that people would recognise that Cabinet had only done what they had to do. He felt that the low public response to the Budget consultation could be as a result of the highly successful consultation in the summer and the public recognising that some of the issues they had raised had been addressed in the proposals.  

 

He took the opportunity to thank all those involved for their hard work and outlined some of the measures being considered as part of his portfolio in the areas of economic development, admin support and communications.

 

In the debate that followed a number of Cabinet Members spoke in support of the budget proposals for their portfolio giving more details on the rationale. Members felt the budget had been achieved without any major cuts to services and did protect key aspects of the town including its cultural environment.

 

Speaking against the budget, some members felt it lacked vision and had deferred difficult decisions to later years and had missed the opportunity to create more certainty in future years. In response a member highlighted the work that had already been done in planning for the future and working in partnership. Becoming a strategic commissioning authority was a key part of this and there was an opportunity for all members to be engaged in this. 

 

In his summing up, the Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development advised that he had been saddened by the comments of some Members. They had criticised the proposals but not put forward any alternatives. He thanked the PABs for supporting the budget.

 

The Cabinet had based the decision about Cheltenham Festivals (CF) on the business case rather than any personal feelings as had been suggested and at the point of the outturn report Cabinet would look again at the needs of CF.

 

The Council had already reduced the grant to the Everyman Theatre by £5k, which the Everyman had accepted and importantly, the council had borrowed monies on their behalf for restorative works. 

 

Members were advised that recommendations 1 and 7 were for approval rather than to note as stated in the report.

 

Upon a vote it was

 

RESOLVED that;

1. The revised budget for 2010/11 be approved;

 

2. The final budget proposals detailed in this report and supporting appendices, including a proposed council tax for the services provided by Cheltenham Borough Council of £187.12 for the year 2011/12 (a 0% increase based on a Band D property) be approved;

           

3. The growth proposals, including one off initiatives at Appendix 3 be approved;

           

4. The reserve re-alignments at Appendix 8, as outlined in section 10 be approved.

           

5. The proposed capital programme at Appendix 9, as outlined in Section 11 be approved and the intention to fund the replacement of vehicles and recycling bins through prudential borrowing where deemed appropriate be approved;

           

6. The proposed Property Maintenance programme at Appendix 10 be approved;

     

7. The updated Medium Term Financial Strategy at Appendix 11 including the impact of the ‘bridging the gap’ programme on the forecast budget gap be approved;

           

8. A level of supplementary estimate of £100,000 for 2011/12 as outlined in section 15 be approved;

 

9. The creation of the budget working group be approved, with 2 members nominated from each overview and scrutiny committee, to support the process of developing the budget process and improving scrutiny as outlined in Appendix 13.
   
   

(Voting: 24 For, 6 Against, 2 Abstentions)