Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

 

 

The following is the recommended process to be followed for the debate relating to the Council’s Budget for 2017-18. The rules of procedure shall be varied accordingly for this item only.

 

1 a). 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, 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 Finance 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).

 

1 b). The Mayor to remind Members that a recorded vote is required on any significant decision relating to the budget or council tax (including any amendments) as set out in Part 4A- Council Procedures Rule 14.5 as required by the “Local Authorities (Standing Orders)(England)(Amendment)Regulations 2014”.

 

1.Budget Statement and moving of motion

 

(i)            The Cabinet Member Finance shall deliver the budget statement and formally move the resolutions set out in the report of the Cabinet Member Finance. (N.B. Not time limited). They will invite the Section 151 Officer, to introduce their Section 25 report.

(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 Finance (who may refer them to the Section 151 Officer when appropriate), on matters relating to this agenda item (N.B members are limited to one question only, without supplementary, and the Cabinet Member Finance 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)

 

3.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 Finance 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 Finance. (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.

 

 

4.Consideration of Amendments

 

(a)                               If the Cabinet’s budget has not been amended, the Cabinet Member Finance to formally propose the budget (no speech), and the final proposal will be debated and voted upon subject to the Cabinet Member Finance’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 Finance 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.

The Mayor invited the Cabinet Member Finance to introduce the budget which on this occasion would not be followed by a statement from the Chief Finance Officer, Paul Jones, as the Council’s Section 151 officer as he had provided Members with a detailed update a few days earlier. However, he would respond to Members’ questions. To facilitate the presentation of the Budget, the Mayor 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 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 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 unanimously by Council.

 

The Mayor reminded Members that a recorded vote must be held on any significant decision relating to the budget or council tax (including any amendments) as set out in Part 4A – Council Procedures Rule 14.5 as required by the ‘Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014’. This will apply to agenda items 11 and 12 and 13.

 

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the 2017/18 budget proposals with a detailed speech (please see Appendix 1).

 

The Cabinet Member Finance moved acceptance of the 2017/18 budget as set out in the report. The motion was seconded by Councillor Jordan who reserved his right to speak.

 

The Mayor invited Members to ask questions of the Cabinet Members having explained that the Cabinet Member Finance had requested that Cabinet Members respond on items specific to their portfolio.

 

·         What was the rationale that CBC would receive £30 per household less than other local authorities in Gloucestershire?

In response the Cabinet Member agreed that it did seem unfair but she had not been privy to work Government had done in the context of its calculations. She believed that Cheltenham had been a victim of its own success. The S151 officer addressed Council and said the move by Government to calculate funding for local authorities based on spending power which included council tax raised, rather than need, had introduced more unfairness into the system. This shift benefits rural areas and big counties at the expense of towns like Cheltenham.  The council’s view on this had been communicated to Government via its consultation response submitted in December. He added that a detailed consultation on the full retention of business rates had been issued and it was important that the needs assessment was addressed as part of this. The council would prepare a significant response to the consultation and share with Members once it had been submitted.

·         When asked whether Alex Chalk MP had reported back to the Cabinet Member Finance regarding business rates, the Cabinet Member clarified that she had been in contact with Alex Chalk but had not received any further details subsequent to his meeting with Sadiq Javid, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and since the council had received its financial settlement.

·         A question was raised with regard to the former Cabinet Member Finance’s commitment to abolish car parking charges from 6pm. It was asked when it was likely to happen and if there was any reason why it should not happen. In response the Cabinet Member Development and Safety explained that circumstances had changed since the statement by the former Cabinet Member and the Borough Council was in the process of integrating with the County Council parking strategy. A year ago the County was not charging beyond 6 pm but this had now changed and charges were in force up to 8pm with funds raised being used to fund residents’ parking. This issue was being looked into further by the cabinet member working group which would next meet in April.

·         When asked whether this budget included penalties on those who lied about single occupancy the Cabinet Member Corporate Services said the implementation date for this was part of the counter fraud measures.

·         A question was raised regarding a leaflet circulated during the elections in 2015 by the current MP who pledged to get the best deal for Cheltenham. Was this now called into question given that Cheltenham was worse off than every other district. In response the Cabinet Member Finance said she believed that the council was penalised as Cheltenham was a wealthy and successful town.

·         In response to a question regarding plans to recover reserves being drawn down in 2017/18, the Cabinet Member Finance highlighted that the reserves had been set up to deal with these eventualities and as such were meeting that need to avoid making service cuts. However the MTFS was working towards replacing these reserves over the period and as such any underspends or windfalls would be put in reserves.

 

As leader of the Conservative group, Councillor Harman gave his response to the budget. He wished to put on record his thanks to the Section 151 Officer and Deputy Section 151 Officer for preparing the budget and for providing him with advice. He also wished to highlight the contribution of Alex Chalk MP in jointly securing the bid for the Cyber Hub.

He made reference to the involvement of the cross party Budget Scrutiny Working Group in examining the budget proposals and emphasised that the role of the opposition was to ask questions and challenge the administration. The council should be proud of the services it was still able to deliver despite the financial pressures. He referred to the issue of car parking and the commitment given by the administration a year ago. He did however welcome the sensible coordination between the County Council and the Borough Council which he believed should continue. He recognised that hard decisions had to be made.

 

Councillor Harman then proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor Savage.

 

“Savings

 

That Council seeks to join Revenue and Benefits and Customer Care into the Twenty Twenty Process saving £159,000 per annum based on the latest figures.

 

That Council moves to whole Council Elections as soon as practical saving £30,000 per annum.

 

Total estimated Savings £189,000.

 

Priority Spend

 

That the full amount of £189,000 as above be added to appropriate budgets to support the introduction and implementation of the Place Strategy.”

 

In proposing the amendment which he believed would deliver realistic savings with no impact on services, Councillor Harman said he was concerned that there were no signs of any resources to implement the Place Strategy, the delivery of which was crucial to the future of the town. He therefore believed that it was important to look for additional ways to resource it. He made reference to the administration’s “U turn” regarding the withdrawal of customer services and revenues and benefits from 2020. He had served on the 2020 working group and believed taking this route would not represent a threat for the town but would deliver realistic savings which other councils were enjoying. He believed  it would still be possible to deliver Cheltenham’s services in an efficient way as possible with no reduction in service levels. It would also create an opportunity to improve services and share good practice.

 

Secondly he emphasised that Cheltenham was the only authority in the County not to look seriously at changing electoral arrangements. He believed that the public were confused about the frequency of local elections and that there was a justifiable financial argument to pursue four yearly elections which would be rational, sensible and explainable to the public.

In concluding, Councillor Harman said there was a lot more that the council could do in developing Place including boosting tourism but he questioned how this would be realistically achieved without resources.

 

Councillor John Payne gave his response to the budget in the absence of Councillor Stennett, Leader of the PAB. He made reference to the Budget Scrutiny Working group which had provided him with first hand insight into the complexities and challenges faced by finance officers and the Cabinet Member. He recognised the challenging financial environment particularly now with changes to the New Homes Bonus which the council had always used prudently in the past. He welcomed the fact that there would be a balanced budget and that key services would be maintained with the support of reserves where appropriate. He did however express concern about the reliance on business rates and the increasing role reserves would play. He hoped that the economic development of Cheltenham progressed but feared it would not go as far as desired. He believed more could be done to encourage business start ups in the town in industries that the town needed. In conclusion he expressed the PAB group’s support for the budget.

 

In debating the amendment Members made the following points against the amendment :

 

·         Two yearly elections made Members more accountable and promoted democracy. They provided Members with the opportunity to talk with voters giving residents the ability to give their views on what the council was doing.

·         Approximately 50% of elections were run concurrently with other elections so the savings to be gained from two yearly elections would be minimal and current expenditure only equated to 26 pence per voter

·         A Member commented that there were many councils who held elections by thirds, i.e. even more frequently than CBC.

·         £189k represented half of the New Homes Bonus which had just been lost. It was important that central Government thought about the needs of local government.

·         2020-some Members believed that it was important for Cheltenham residents to be served by Cheltenham and not let a company based out of the area making a decision on services it required. In addition any benefits gained from providing services in house would be totally lost with 2020.

·         The Leader did not regard the amendment as a serious one and particularly given the time in which it was presented, i.e. after the special Cabinet meeting and prior to Council

·         Reference was made to ongoing work on revenues and benefits and customer services which would deliver savings whilst maintaining the focus on Cheltenham.  The impact of outsourcing two vital front facing services for the electorate should there be a problem was highlighted and the council had its own responsibility to its constituents in that regard. Holding 2020 to account would be difficult with very few Councillors represented.

·         Members were confident that the Place Strategy could be brought forward in a balanced and considered way and there was a strategy in place to deliver it in conjunction with partners.

·         A Member believed the amendment to be irresponsible and asked what the intended saving of £189k was to be spent on specifically.

·         A Member highlighted that the £159k saving from 2020 was based on an assumption that the business rate collection rate did not change

 

For the amendment :

·         A Member warned that at a recent meeting of Overview and Scrutiny he had heard for the first time that a cycling project could not be supported due to lack of resources but this could change should savings be made elsewhere

·         It was recognised that £189k was not a huge amount but could be better spent

 

As seconder of the amendment Councillor Savage acknowledged the challenges facing local government finance. There were difficult choices to be made and two yearly council elections would not be regarded by the public as a front line service. £30k was still a significant sum of money. Members should listen to residents all year round and not just at election time.

 

Finally, Councillor Harman said the opportunity to make resources available for the Place Strategy should be taken. Promoting Cheltenham was vital for the town’s future. His group would continue to press on these issues as the Place Strategy unfolded and he predicted that the council would join 2020 eventually. In terms of the elections he referred to changes made by Gloucester City and Stroud last year and the County Council had reduced the number of its councillors by 9 which had delivered savings. It was clear that it was important to continue to fight for additional funds for the Place Strategy.

 

In responding to the amendment the Cabinet Member Finance referred to the fact that it was a Council decision to keep REST services within the authority due its importance as a “home grown” service. There were a number of savings due to come from the REST restructure and the Managing Director Place and Economic Development had to undertake a number of things in advance in order to deliver these and it was no longer a case of working in isolation.   She made reference to the £50k allocated the previous year for tourism and highlighted that the strategic lead for tourism would remain within the council as its development was key to the town’s future.

 

A recorded vote was required upon the amendment and this was LOST

 

Voting

For 6: Councillors Babbage, Harman, Mason, Nelson, Savage and Seacome.

Against 25: Councillors Barnes, Baker, Bickerton, Britter, Clucas, Coleman, Collins, Fisher, Harvey, R Hay,Hobley, Jeffries, Jordan, H McCloskey, P McCloskey,McKinlay, Oliver, Parsons,Sudbury, Thornton,Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson,Williams and Willingham.

 

Abstain 3: , Lillywhite, Payne and Ryder.

 

The substantive motion then became the recommendations as listed in the report

 

The debate then moved to the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Jordan, as Leader of the Council, thanked the Cabinet Member Finance and officers, particularly the Finance team for preparing the budget. He expressed his concern that Government had become distracted by Brexit which he believed was the reason why the decision on the financial settlement had been delayed and which was why this Council meeting had been moved. The late announcement included higher cuts than had been consulted on and every authority would be using council tax to offset them. This council would raise council tax by 2.6 %, a modest rise. It was likely that there would be more years of council tax rises and it would take time to consider the options.

 

The Leader emphasised the key role of economic development which encompassed all the council did in many ways. He gave the example of the successful partnership working of the Cheltenham Development Task Force which had resulted in redevelopments including the Brewery and John Lewis and the development of the Cheltenham Transport Plan. The focus would now be on the West of Cheltenham and the Cyber Zone which had recently been awarded £22 million.  The coordinating role of the task force would be essential to make it work assuming it does not predetermine the JCS process. The Leader made reference to the work of the BID which had a positive start and was hosting new events. He acknowledged that there were public realm issues on the High Street which needed to be addressed. The Place Strategy represented the overarching view for the benefit of the town and a member seminar would be held on 1 March to consider the way forward.

 

The following comments were made on the budget :

 

·         Members thanked the Cabinet Member Finance and the Finance Team for their diligent work. They recognised the challenging times being faced.

·         This budget was responsive, measured, prudent and sustainable

·         There was recognition of some positive ambitions such as the cemetery and crematorium project which would serve Cheltenham for generations, improvements to recycling services and further improvements to parks and open spaces in spite of cuts to local government.

·         Commissioning services had led to improved services, e.g. CBH, Festivals, Cheltenham Trust despite cuts and Members looked forward to plans at Leisure@ and the Town Hall

·         The Place Strategy as a long term plan was exciting for Cheltenham as a whole which other partners would buy into

·         Concern was expressed with regard to the impact of the business rates re-evaluation on small businesses which could risk them leaving the town

·         Whilst investment in parks and open spaces was welcomed, volunteers should be celebrated and recognised as achieving green flag status for the town’s parks wouldn’t be possible without them

 

In summing up the Cabinet Member Finance referred Members to paragraph 4.28 in the report, highlighting the issues with business rates including appeals which were undermining local government’s ability to make business rates retention a success. She thanked Members for their comments and consideration of the amendment. She was grateful for the recognition of what the administration was trying to achieve.  This was a balanced budget despite cuts in government grant. The local economy would be strengthened, front line services protected, there would be more efficient savings and more shared services and there was a clear vision for Cheltenham.

 

In accordance with the legislation a recorded vote was required. Therecommendations were passed unanimously.

Voting For 36: Councillors Babbage, Barnes, Baker, Bickerton, Britter, Clucas, Coleman, Collins, Fisher, Flynn, Harman, Harvey, C Hay, R Hay, Hobley, Jeffries, Jordan, Lillywhite, Mason, H McCloskey, P McCloskey, McKinlay, Nelson, Oliver, Parsons, Payne, Ryder, Savage, Seacome, Sudbury, Thornton, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson, Williams and Willingham.

 

RESOLVED THAT :

 

1. the revised budget for 2016/17 be noted and the recommendation of the Section 151 Officer to transfer the identified saving of £110,737 to the budget strategy (support) reserveas detailed in Section 3.1 be approved.
2. Having considered the budget assessment by the Section 151 Officer at Appendix 2 the following recommendations be approved.
3. the final budget proposals including a proposed council tax for the services provided by Cheltenham Borough Council of £197.12 for the year 2017/18 (an increase of 2.60% or £5.00 a year for a Band D property), as detailed in paragraphs 4.37 to 4.42 be approved.
4. the growth proposals, including one off initiatives at Appendix 4, be approved.
5. the savings / additional income totalling £1,408,700 and the budget strategy at Appendix 5 be approved.
6. the use of reserves and general balances be approved and the projected level of reserves, as detailed at Appendix 6 be noted.
7. Award temporary business rates relief for local newspapers for up to two years from April 2017, as set out in paras 4.30 to 4.33, subject to full reimbursement from the Government and the award of such relief be delegated to the Revenues Manager.
8. It be noted that the Council will remain in the Gloucestershire business rates pool for 2017/18 (para 4.26).
9. an above inflationary increase in cremation fee (estimated to generate additional income of £373,550) with a corresponding contribution to the budget strategy (support) reserve, as detailed in paragraphs 6.10 to 6.13 be approved.
10. the Pay Policy Statement for 2017/18, including the continued payment of a living wage supplement at Appendix 9 be approved.
11. a level of supplementary estimate of £100,000 for 2017/18 as outlined in Section 14 be approved.